Return the single ranked-pool row for one AMM account from the amm_ranked_pools snapshot. Raises when the account is absent (unranked, below thresholds, or newer than the last snapshot). Wrapped in the proof envelope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amm_account | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses failure behavior ('Raises when the account is absent') and response format ('Wrapped in the proof envelope'). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read-only query this is sufficient.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by exception behavior and response wrappings. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
The description explains the purpose and error cases but does not describe the contents of the 'single ranked-pool row' or the proof envelope structure. Since there is no output schema, more detail about the return value would improve completeness.
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%, and the description does not explain the amm_account parameter. However, the parameter name and title ('Amm Account') are self-descriptive, and with a single required string parameter, the lack of additional semantics is not critical.
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 identifies the action ('Return'), the specific resource ('the single ranked-pool row for one AMM account'), and the source ('amm_ranked_pools snapshot'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_amm_top_by_tvl by focusing on a single account rather than a list.
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 provides clear context: this tool is for a single AMM account and raises if the account is unranked, below thresholds, or newer than the last snapshot. This implies when to use it (for known ranked accounts) but does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_amm_top_by_tvl for top listings.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action, from amendments and AMM pools to RLUSD supply and whale events. Even the two whale-related tools have clear boundaries: events include all events, while watchlist focuses on tagged-watchlist events. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent get_<resource> pattern, with the sole exception being verify_snapshot_signature, which correctly uses a verb for a verification action. The naming is uniform, readable, and predictable throughout.
15 tools is at the upper end of the ideal range, but each tool covers a distinct aspect of the XRPL dashboard domain, from ledgers and RLUSD to RWA and UNL. The scope feels well-calibrated for a read-only dashboard server, with no redundant or trivial tools.
The tool set provides comprehensive read-only coverage of the dashboard's features, including amendment status, AMM pools, ledger stats, MPT, RLUSD supply/flow, RWA pools/families, token attestations, UNL, whale events/watchlist, and signed snapshots with verification. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.
