List all 34 XRPL actions that build_xrpl_transaction can produce. For each you get: id, plain-English label, category, safety tier, and every parameter (name, type, required, example). Call this FIRST so you pass the right product_id and params in one shot instead of guessing and getting a missing-params error. No parameters. Free, no signup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a strong job: it states the tool has no parameters, is free, requires no signup, and returns a fixed set of fields for all 34 actions. It also warns about avoiding missing-params errors. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a no-parameter listing endpoint this is a minor gap.
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 three tight sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and count are front-loaded, followed by the return fields, tactical usage guidance, and operational constraints. Every sentence 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?
This is a low-complexity no-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned—and it does: id, label, category, safety tier, and all parameters with type, required, and example. It also covers when to call it and that no signup is needed, making it fully actionable.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'No parameters.' and reinforces it with 'Free, no signup.' There is no additional parameter meaning to add because the input schema is already empty and fully covered.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all 34 XRPL actions that build_xrpl_transaction can produce.' It clearly distinguishes this discovery tool from the transaction-building sibling by focusing on enumeration rather than execution. The listed output fields further clarify exactly what the tool returns.
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 gives explicit usage timing: 'Call this FIRST so you pass the right product_id and params in one shot.' It contrasts this with the failure mode of 'guessing and getting a missing-params error', which tells the agent when and why to use this tool instead of directly calling build_xrpl_transaction.
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.