spraay_stellar_estimate

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

The description explicitly states 'Costs $0.001 USDC per call,' which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, etc.) are present but the description adds non-obvious cost info. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies state or if there are rate limits, which would improve transparency.

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?

The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds some information, though the second sentence about providing typed arguments is somewhat redundant with the schema. It is concise but could be more informative without losing brevity.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (existence known but not shown) and only one parameter, the description fails to explain what the output represents or how the estimate is computed. The purpose is unclear, and important context (e.g., blockchain, relation to 'spraay_stellar_batch') is missing. The description is incomplete for agent decision-making.

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% (the only parameter 'recipientCount' is described in schema as 'recipientCount parameter'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely says to provide fields as typed. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding of the parameter.

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?

The description states 'Stellar batch estimate' which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity about what is being estimated (cost, time, or something else). The tool name suggests cost estimation for a Stellar batch, but the description does not confirm this. It is not a tautology but is vague.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'spraay_batch_estimate' or 'spraay_stellar_batch'. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The only usage advice is to 'Provide the listed fields as typed arguments,' which is trivial.

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