stellar_network_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read ('Fetch') but says nothing about whether it reads local config versus an RPC endpoint, what permissions are needed, or how the 'internal' non-upgradeable settings differ — the one behaviorally interesting hint (internal config) is left entirely to the parameter name.

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 short sentence with zero padding that is front-loaded and to the point. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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 seven optional parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should do meaningful work. It does not explain what 'config settings' are returned, whether the result is local or remote, or how the output format selection affects the response, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 seven parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides — no clarification of network vs rpcUrl precedence or the internal flag's implications.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('the network's config settings'), so the purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as stellar_network_info, stellar_network_list, or stellar_config_dir, leaving ambiguity about which config source it targets.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no named alternative. With siblings like stellar_network_info and stellar_config_dir present, the agent is left to guess which one returns config settings versus network metadata or the config directory path.

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