stellar_tx_path_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation sends a payment, but does not describe authorization requirements, whether the transaction is submitted or only built, failure modes, or how path finding affects execution.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity is closer to under-specification than optimal conciseness for a 13-parameter mutation tool.

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?

Given 13 parameters, 6 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is incomplete. It does not explain strict send versus strict receive behavior, the role of build_only, or the meaning of path finding in this context.

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 13 parameters, including strict_mode, build_only, fee, path, and destination, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: sending a payment via path finding for cross-asset transfers. It distinguishes the tool's core purpose from generic payment tools, though it does not explicitly name or compare itself against siblings such as stellar_tx_payment or stellar_tx_send.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stellar_tx_payment or stellar_tx_send. The phrase 'cross-asset transfers' implies a use case, but the agent receives no when-not conditions or routing logic.

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