stellar_tx_create_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies mutation. It does not state that this submits an irreversible on-chain transaction, that it spends real XLM on mainnet, or that build_only suppresses submission. These are significant omissions for a write 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse, but the brevity itself is efficient rather than padded.

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 6-parameter mutating transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the essential context: submission behavior, funding requirements, network/irreversibility implications, and what the caller gets back. It is not complete enough for safe invocation.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including network enum and build_only semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 compound verb ('create and fund') plus the resource ('new Stellar account'), so an agent can tell it apart from stellar_tx_payment or stellar_keys_fund at a glance. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling or contrast its scope 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the source account must already exist and hold sufficient XLM), and no routing to alternatives such as stellar_keys_fund for funding an existing account. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name.

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