Quote an XRP->token swap against the live XLS-30 AMM pool: tokens out, spot vs effective price, price impact. Price: $0.001 USDC. Missing something? Call submit_feedback (free) to request it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issuer | Yes | ||
| xrp_in | No | ||
| currency | Yes |
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 only mentions what the tool returns but does not state whether the operation is read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that queries an AMM pool.
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 short with two meaningful sentences, but the inclusion of 'Price: $0.001 USDC' seems like an example or placeholder that adds confusion rather than value. It is concise but the structure is slightly muddled by the extraneous price line and the feedback suggestion.
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 the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, return value format, example usage, or any guidance on prerequisites. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional 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?
The input schema has 3 parameters (issuer, xrp_in, currency) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter in detail. It vaguely implies that xrp_in and currency relate to the swap but does not clarify the 'issuer' parameter, leaving the agent without necessary guidance for correct usage.
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 clearly states the action (quote), the resource (XRP->token swap via XLS-30 AMM pool), and what is returned (tokens out, spot vs effective price, price impact). The mention of a specific price ($0.001 USDC) is confusing and detracts slightly, but the core purpose is still clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like find_best_path by specifying a direct pool quote.
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?
The description includes 'Missing something? Call submit_feedback (free) to request it,' which gives a hint for when to use a sibling tool for feedback but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_best_path. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, leaving the agent uncertain about choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: address checks, token checks, price analysis, transaction simulation, path finding, wallet history, pool discovery, attestation, and monitoring all have clear boundaries. While some tools share domain (e.g., check_xrpl_token vs resolve_asset), their purposes are clearly differentiated in descriptions.
Nearly all tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_*, get_*, verify_*, analyze_*, explore_*, find_*, quote_*, watch_*, submit_*). The only slight deviation is 'token_holders', a noun phrase, but it is still concise and follows the same lowercase snake_case style, so it does not create confusion.
20 tools is on the heavier side of the ideal range, but the server's scope—cross-chain security, token analysis, monitoring, attestation, and market data—justifies this breadth. Each tool covers a distinct sub-domain, so the count is reasonable though slightly above the typical 3-15 sweet spot.
The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: token discovery, safety, identity, price, holders, monitoring, address/issuer risk, transaction simulation, route finding, wallet activity, endpoint trust, and attestation. There are no obvious dead ends; users can discover tokens, verify them, track them, and receive alerts—a full lifecycle for crypto risk assessment.
