getLedger

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 details' and does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what fields are included in the returned details. The read-only nature is inferable from the verb but not explicitly stated.

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 sentence with no filler, redundancies, or repeated schema content. It front-loads the action and resource while keeping the whole definition minimal and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description and schema together make the basic invocation clear. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves unspecified what 'details' contains and what the response looks like, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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%, and the schema already explains that 'sequence' is the ledger sequence number and that it defaults to latest. The description adds the context of targeting a specific ledger but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific Stellar ledger by sequence number.' It is not a tautology and the target resource is unambiguous. However, 'details' is somewhat vague and the description does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like getAccount or getTransactions.

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, and no exclusions or fallback tools are mentioned. The only implicit usage signal is that the caller wants a specific ledger by sequence number, but no context is provided about choosing getLedger over the sibling tools.

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