N9T2 XRPL Agent Gateway

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval but omits any details about permissions, rate limits, or return format. Minimal useful context is provided.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loads the verb, but it is under-specified and lacks the structural elements (e.g., parameter hints, usage cues) that would make it truly helpful.

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 tool with a required input and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what account information is returned, any prerequisites, or how the call behaves, leaving significant gaps.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'account' has no description in the schema. The description adds no meaning, such as expected format or constraints, so an agent must guess the parameter's semantics.

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 clear verb 'retrieve' and resource 'XRPL account information', so the agent knows the basic action. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like n9t2_xrpl_account_tx, leaving ambiguity about what specific account data is returned.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as n9t2_xrpl_account_tx or n9t2_xrpl_ledger. The description only states what it does, not the context for its use.

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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about pagination, default limit behavior, ordering, or result size. All it conveys is that this is a retrieval operation, which the name already implies.

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 with no padding, so it is concise and front-loaded. The weakness is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 4-parameter query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent has no information on filtering behavior, defaults, or results without inferring from the XRPL API domain.

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?

Four parameters with 0% schema description coverage: limit, account, ledger_index_min, and ledger_index_max are all undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain the ledger-range filtering or limit semantics at all.

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 ('Retrieve XRPL transaction history for an account'), which is clear enough to distinguish a history-list operation from a single-transaction fetch. However, it never names or contrasts with the sibling n9t2_xrpl_tx or n9t2_xrpl_account_info, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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 the sibling n9t2_xrpl_tx (single transaction) or n9t2_xrpl_account_info, and no mention of prerequisites. The only implied usage is 'you have an account and want its transactions'.

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 behavioral burden, but it only implies a read via 'Retrieve.' It omits whether authentication is needed, how results are ordered or paginated, whether it reflects live ledger state, and how the limit behaves.

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 filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to stating the action and resource.

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 DEX order-book tool with nested required objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not cover parameter structure, result contents, or behavioral constraints an agent needs before invoking it.

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 0% for all 3 parameters, including two required nested objects, and the description does not explain the expected shape of taker_gets/taker_pays or the effect of limit. The phrase 'trading pair' hints at the two required objects but adds no usable format or semantic detail.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('XRPL DEX order book offers') scoped to 'a trading pair,' which clearly separates it from account/ledger/path-finding siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with an alternative tool, keeping it shy 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like n9t2_xrpl_path_find or n9t2_xrpl_tx. The only implied usage comes from the phrase 'for a trading pair,' which is not enough to route an agent confidently.

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 behavioral burden. It does not say which ledger is returned by default (latest validated?), whether 'expand' changes the response shape, whether results are paginated, or what the call costs/requires — it only mentions that transactions can be included.

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 filler — the core action leads. It is arguably too terse given what is left unexplained, but as pure conciseness it is efficient.

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, no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and a near-identical sibling, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call this correctly or choose it over n9t2_xrpl_ledger_data.

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 0% across three parameters. The description partially explains 'transactions' ('optionally its transactions') but says nothing about 'ledger_index' (accepted index forms, defaults) or 'expand' (what it expands). Two of three parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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 verb and resource ('Retrieve XRPL ledger information'), which is clear on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the very close sibling n9t2_xrpl_ledger_data, leaving the agent to guess which ledger tool to pick.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling covers the adjacent case (e.g. n9t2_xrpl_ledger_data). The only implicit cue is the 'optionally its transactions' phrase, which hints at the transactions flag but not at tool selection.

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 behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read, but nothing states whether ledger state data is large, whether pagination is required for full results, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. The one behavioral claim (optional pagination) is too thin for a no-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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded, no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from omitting information an agent needs rather than from disciplined editing.

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, no output schema, and all three parameters undocumented, the description is far too thin. It does not explain return shape, pagination workflow (limit + marker round-tripping), or ledger_index resolution, so an agent could not invoke it confidently.

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 0% with three undocumented parameters (limit, marker, ledger_index). The description only gestures at pagination via limit/marker and says nothing about ledger_index accepting a string or integer, nor about marker's opaque cursor semantics. It fails to compensate for the coverage 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve XRPL ledger state data'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling n9t2_xrpl_ledger, leaving an agent unsure whether 'ledger state data' overlaps with that tool's output.

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 only usage hint is 'with optional pagination,' which describes a parameter rather than when to choose this tool over n9t2_xrpl_ledger or the other siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance are provided.

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. 'Find' implies a read-only query and 'across the XRPL DEX' gives domain context, but it omits permissions, side effects, rate limits, return behavior, and whether this is a request or subscription.

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. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the completeness gaps noted elsewhere.

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 3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It gives no parameter formats, no usage conditions, and no return or behavioral context, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning for any of the three required parameters. 'Between two accounts' only loosely gestures at source_account and destination_account, and destination_amount is entirely unexplained, including its anyOf string/object format.

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 'Find' and resource 'payment paths' scoped to XRPL DEX and two accounts. It is clearly distinct from siblings like account_info or tx, but does not explicitly differentiate or name alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no alternatives are given. The purpose implies it is used to find payment paths, but there is no context for choosing it over siblings such as book_offers.

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 implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about what happens when the hash is not found, whether the result is cached or requires a live ledger lookup, or what the `binary` flag changes in behavior.

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 efficient sentence with the key concept front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin for a two-parameter tool. An agent cannot determine the effect of `binary` or the failure mode for an unknown hash.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `transaction` is a transaction hash, but adds nothing about the `binary` parameter's meaning or effect, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (XRPL transaction) and names the lookup key (transaction hash). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling n9t2_xrpl_account_tx, which likely also returns transactions, 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus n9t2_xrpl_account_tx or n9t2_xrpl_ledger_data. The description only restates what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from sibling names alone.

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