getClaimableBalances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which weakly implies a read-only operation, but does not mention filtering behavior, default limit, pagination, whether the account is a required implicit context, or what the response contains. This is a minimal behavioral description with significant gaps.

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 a single focused sentence with no fluff, making it easy to quickly parse. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though the vague 'for a Stellar account' phrasing slightly reduces precision.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin to be complete. The most important missing piece is how the target Stellar account is identified, since no account parameter exists in the schema. The description also fails to mention expected result structure or any default behaviors.

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 the baseline is 3 without additional parameter details. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and it even introduces a 'Stellar account' concept not present in the schema, which could confuse an agent about how to specify the account. Still, the schema itself documents all parameters clearly.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get claimable balances' for a Stellar account. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getAccount, getTransactions, and getPayments, which target different Stellar resources. The slight ambiguity about how the account is selected prevents a higher score.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getAccount or getPayments. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or conditions that would guide an agent toward or away from this tool. The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description offers no differentiation guidance.

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