Top Stellar assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: rankings are based on a 7-day window, which an agent needs to interpret the results. It does not say anything about result size, ordering of ties, or freshness of the underlying data, so it is a modest add rather than rich context.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the resource and its ranking dimensions are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and there is nothing to trim.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter, read-only ranking tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and interpret the ranking basis. It could be marginally stronger by noting what an asset record contains or rough result volume, but nothing essential is 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, sort_by) are already fully documented in the schema, including the enum values with a default of 'volume'. The description mirrors the enum list and adds the 7-day measurement window, which slightly enriches 'volume'/'trades' meaning, but it adds nothing about limit behavior or bounds beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific resource ('most active Stellar assets') and the dimensions by which they are ranked, so an agent can immediately tell this is a discovery/list tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the sibling set (stellar_asset, stellar_orderbook, stellar_account) is naturally disjoint from a top-assets ranking, so confusion risk is low.

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?

Usage is implied by 'most active... ranked by', so an agent can infer this is for discovering/popularity-ranking assets rather than querying a specific one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of when to prefer stellar_asset for a single lookup, and no prerequisites or limits called out.

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