stellar_tx_send

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 action but omits critical traits: irreversibility of broadcasting, fee implications, permission/network requirements, and expected outcome (e.g., transaction hash return). This is a significant gap for a mutation/broadcast tool.

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 zero waste. It is efficient, though perhaps overly terse given the lack of behavioral context, but the dimension rewards conciseness and structure.

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 mutation/broadcast tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, whether the operation is final, or any safety considerations, leaving the agent with only the bare action statement.

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 both parameters (tx_xdr as base64 signed XDR, network as enum). The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (signed transaction), distinguishing it from siblings like stellar_tx_sign, stellar_tx_simulate, and stellar_tx_fetch. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify how it differs from raw broadcast operations, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stellar_tx_simulate or stellar_tx_sign, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must sign first). Usage is only implied by the verb 'send'.

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