Stellar asset profile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: a bare ticker resolves to the most traded asset and returns look-alike candidates, which is an important ambiguity-resolution trait an agent cannot infer elsewhere. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description correctly does not restate them. Data staleness or source limits are unmentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields, then input forms plus the resolution rule, then the use case. No filler and no repetition of the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but the description lists the returned data categories, which is enough to know what to expect. For a third-party (openWorld) data lookup, details like freshness, caching, or failure behavior when an asset is unknown are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description still adds meaning the schema cannot: the three accepted forms are given along with the resolution rule for the ambiguous ticker form and the side effect of listing look-alikes. That is substantive semantics beyond the format example in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names the resource (Stellar asset) and enumerates exactly what it returns: price, supply, holders, 7-day volume, StellarExpert rating, verification flags. That field list also separates it from siblings like stellar_account and stellar_top_assets without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete decision context: 'Use it to check an issuer before trusting a token.' It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use stellar_top_assets for discovery, stellar_account for a wallet), so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.