Launch Lab XRP Data

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the call is free and that it returns a score plus exact fixes, but it omits whether it performs external network fetches against the supplied URL, latency/timeout behavior, and any auth requirements. Useful context, but incomplete for a zero-annotation 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?

Effectively two sentences, front-loaded with the 'FREE' cost signal and the core action before the diagnostic checklist. The parenthetical enumeration is long but each item is a distinct check, so it earns its space.

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 one-parameter diagnostic with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both what is inspected and what comes back (score and exact fixes), which compensates for the missing output schema. Remaining gaps are environmental details like network behavior and runtime.

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% and the single 'url' parameter is documented in the schema as 'The paid endpoint URL'. The description confirms the URL is a paid endpoint but adds no format, scheme, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (check/validate) and resource (x402 paid endpoint configuration) and enumerates the concrete checks it performs (HTTP 402, PAYMENT-REQUIRED v2, XRPL invoiceId/sourceTag, RLUSD issuer, payTo, discovery file). An agent can tell it is a diagnostic rather than a lister, though it never names or contrasts the overlapping sibling xrp_paid_endpoints.

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 'so AI agents can actually pay it' clause implies the pre-flight validation use case, and 'FREE' signals cost, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from xrp_paid_endpoints. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: the free/cached nature and a concrete staleness bound (up to 6 hours), plus where live data lives. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes, so a full 4-5 is not earned.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the free/cached qualifier is front-loaded and the paid alternative is deferred to the end where it belongs. Every clause carries information.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what comes back (the enumerated sections), freshness (6h cache), cost model, and the paid alternative. Missing only peripheral operational detail such as auth/rate limits.

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% and the single 'section' parameter is already documented with examples (snapshot, outlook, levels, derivs, events, flows, news). The description's content list overlaps that documentation without adding format or default-value guidance, 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?

The description identifies a specific resource (an XRP brief) and enumerates its contents (price, regime/volatility, model outlook, liquidity levels, derivatives, events, flows, news), which goes well beyond restating the name. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from xrp_paid_endpoints via 'free, cached'. It lacks an explicit verb for what the tool does (retrieve/return), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear context for selection: this is the free cached variant, and it names the alternative with its condition ('Live data is pay-per-call (see xrp_paid_endpoints)'). It does not spell out an explicit 'do not use this when...' rule or note any rate limits, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses cost ('FREE'), the analysis scope (wallet-drainer patterns, fake RLUSD issuers, missing destination tags, partial payments), and the exact verdict vocabulary returned. It still omits whether the tool is purely read-only/non-custodial, whether the submitted tx is sent to an external service, or any rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the key differentiator ('FREE safety check') and compresses purpose, risk coverage, and output into two dense sentences with no filler. Minor density cost from the long risk enumeration, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by naming the three verdict values, and it explains the risk categories it detects. Given a single required parameter and full schema coverage, an agent has nearly everything it needs; only the read-only/custody behavior and any limits are unstated.

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 three parameters (tx, signer, max_xrp) are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the JSON-or-hex input format and adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (explain an XRPL transaction) plus the scope that matters: pre-signing safety analysis. The named outputs (looks_normal, review, do_not_sign) and risk classes make its function unmistakable and clearly distinct from the sibling tools (doctor, brief, paid endpoints, track record), none of which explain transactions.

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 phrase 'before signing it' gives clear situational context for when to reach for this tool. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g. whether it works on already-signed transactions or non-XRPL chains), so it stops short of the explicit when/when-not guidance a 5 would require.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that it performs public ledger reads only, requires no wallet signing, and returns a limited free preview. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and return format details.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the free preview and then add the key constraints. There is no filler, though a slightly clearer structure could improve it.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives useful context about scope and result size. Still, it leaves the address input format and output structure unspecified.

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 sole 'address' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not describe its expected format or meaning beyond the implied wallet address. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 tool provides a wallet safety preview with a heuristic score and up to three issues, distinguishing the free preview from a paid full report. It does not name or contrast with any sibling tool, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 mention of 'full report is paid' implies this tool is for free previews, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the paid alternative or other sibling tools. Usage is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses the payment model and price range (0.0001-0.05 XRP per call) plus the underlying protocol. It does not say whether calling this listing tool itself is free, whether a wallet or auth is needed, or what the response looks like, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and folds protocol, ledger, and price range in without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is listed and how payment works, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits the return shape and any preconditions for consuming the listed endpoints, but those are minor for a catalog listing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. No parameter-level claims are made that could conflict with the schema.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (live, pay-per-call XRP data endpoints) and names the protocol (x402 on the XRP Ledger), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like x402_doctor or xrp_brief_sample, so it stops short of a 5.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite four siblings that could plausibly overlap (e.g. x402_doctor for payment diagnostics). The discovery intent is only implied by the word 'List'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of the result (hits, misses, streak) and the cost profile ('Free'), which is useful. It does not state freshness, whether the record is live or cached, or any rate limits, leaving behavioral gaps for a zero-param read 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 no wasted words: resource, scope, returned fields, and cost all land in one pass.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does by naming hits/misses/streak. For a zero-parameter retrieval tool this is close to complete; only the live-vs-static nature of the record is left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the rubric a 0-param tool earns the baseline 4.

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 names a specific resource ('Launch Lab's graded record of daily XRP calls') and enumerates the returned content ('hits, misses, streak'), so an agent knows this is a data-retrieval tool. The verb is only implied ('record of'), and no sibling is named, but the 'Free' tag lightly distinguishes it from xrp_paid_endpoints.

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?

Usage is only implied: the trailing 'Free' hints this is the no-cost counterpart to the sibling xrp_paid_endpoints, which is a genuine routing signal. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus xrp_brief_sample or the paid endpoints, so guidance stays inferential.

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