stellar_tx_payment

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 discloses almost nothing: it does not mention that submission is the default (implied only by the build_only parameter), whether the transaction is signed or irreversible, what fee defaults apply, or any auth requirements. 'Create and send' hints at a mutation but omits all operational 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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing behavioral detail rather than a virtue of tight writing.

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?

This is a nine-parameter mutating transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should shoulder more of the explanatory load. It omits build_only semantics, submission/signing behavior, fee handling, and asset/memo implications, leaving the agent under-informed for a write operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including fee, memo, memo_type, network, and build_only is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is 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 ('Create and send a payment transaction'), which is clear enough to act on. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as stellar_tx_send, stellar_tx_path_payment, or stellar_tx_create_account, leaving the agent to guess which payment-style tool applies.

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 stellar_tx_send or stellar_tx_path_payment, and no note on prerequisites like signing or sequence management. Usage is only implied by the name itself.

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