getEffects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description does not disclose pagination, sorting, the meaning of 'recent', or the return structure. It adds little beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and clear, though it misses the opportunity to add routing or behavioral context in the same space.

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?

With a simple read tool, two documented parameters, and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it tells the agent what to get and for whom. However, the absence of annotations and output schema means an agent must rely on domain knowledge for return format and selection context, leaving clear gaps.

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%, with both accountId and limit having clear descriptions including format and range. The description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Get'), resource ('recent effects'), and scope ('for a Stellar account'). It is clear and distinct from the tool name, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getOperations or getTransactions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'Get recent effects for a Stellar account' with no context about when effects are preferable to operations, transactions, or payments, and no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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