Read contract data entries from Stellar blockchain networks by specifying network, contract ID, and storage key. Output in string, JSON, or XDR format.
Read contract data entries
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Storage key to read | |
| output | No | Output format | |
| key_xdr | No | Storage key as base64-encoded XDR | |
| network | Yes | Stellar network | |
| durability | No | Storage durability type | |
| contract_id | No | Contract ID to read from |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about read-only safety, whether it performs network calls, error behavior, or what a successful read returns. The single sentence adds no behavioral context.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It is front-loaded but lacks any structure beyond the bare purpose.
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 six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return format, how to choose between key and key_xdr, or what happens on failure. An agent would need to infer behavior entirely from the schema.
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 six parameters (key, key_xdr, network, durability, output, contract_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema 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 'Read contract data entries' restates the tool name with a generic verb+resource. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like stellar_contract_fetch, stellar_contract_info, or stellar_contract_extend, which all relate to contract data.
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 such as stellar_contract_fetch or stellar_contract_info. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.