stellar_contract_fetch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Fetch' implies a read, but it says nothing about what happens when out_file is omitted (returned inline vs. only written to disk), error behavior for unknown contracts, or network/config requirements — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no redundant restatement of the name or title. It is efficient, though terse enough to leave real questions unanswered.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return behavior — particularly whether the WASM is returned as data or only written when out_file is supplied. For a simple read tool with fully-covered parameters, it is adequate but leaves that one meaningful ambiguity unresolved.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema (contract_id, network enum, out_file path). The description adds no format or syntactic detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline 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 verb (fetch) and resource (contract WASM binary) with its source (network), which cleanly separates it from siblings like stellar_contract_upload, stellar_contract_read, and stellar_contract_info. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or contrast itself with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as stellar_contract_read or stellar_contract_info, and no prerequisites (e.g. network config, contract must exist). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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