stellar_contract_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions or network context is required, whether it has side effects, or what the response contains beyond generic 'information'.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, though the trailing 'etc.' is vague and adds little.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain return values, output formats, or how to interpret the different info_type values, leaving the agent without enough context to use it confidently among many sibling contract tools.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters, their enums, and descriptions. The description adds only the examples 'interface' and 'metadata', which partially map to the info_type enum but do not significantly extend schema semantics.

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 clear verb (Get) and resource (contract) with example information types (interface, metadata), so an agent can understand the basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like stellar_contract_read, stellar_contract_fetch, stellar_contract_id, or stellar_contract_bindings, and the 'etc.' makes the scope somewhat 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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not explain when an agent should choose this tool over closely related contract tools such as read, fetch, bindings, or id.

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