XRPL Token Guard

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: it names the specific risk classes inspected (mint/freeze/clawback authority, transfer fees, whale concentration, AMM liquidity) and enumerates the verdict categories returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the risk taxonomy. The long comma-separated checklist is dense but each item is a distinct detection capability that informs the agent's confidence in calling 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not document return structure, yet it still summarizes the verdict tiers and the reasons payload. Combined with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the definition is complete enough to call correctly; only edge conditions (e.g. data-source limits) are unaddressed.

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 both the issuer address format and the ticker/hex currency code are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the passing example 'a fake RLUSD', 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?

Strong specific verb+resource phrasing ('Live safety check of an XRP Ledger token') with an explicit enumeration of what is detected, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, sharply separate itself from the sibling is_it_the_real_token, whose scope (real vs. fake token) overlaps with the look-alike detection described here.

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 word 'Live' implies this is an on-demand check, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among check_wallet_security and is_it_the_real_token. Usage is only implied by the domain, leaving the agent to infer the routing itself.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint, so the 'Read-only' clause is largely redundant. However, the description adds real behavioral context beyond the structured fields: the specific detection heuristic (unexpected regular key / multisig signer list) and the urgency rule that changes in the last 7 days are flagged urgent.

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?

One dense sentence with zero filler: it leads with the core check, names the concrete threat pattern, and ends with the urgency rule and read-only status. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers what is inspected and how findings are prioritized. It stops short of stating anything about failure modes (e.g., invalid address, network errors) or result interpretation, which would round it out.

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 is a single address parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents format and constraints. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (checks whether anyone besides the owner can sign for an XRPL wallet) and enumerates the exact signals it inspects: unexpected regular key or multisig signer list. The wallet-focused scope cleanly separates it from the token-oriented siblings check_token_safety and is_it_the_real_token.

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 makes the use case implied (detecting takeover/drainer setups) but never says when to call this versus the sibling token-checking tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: 'Instant, no ledger call' discloses the lookup is against a hardcoded issuer list rather than a live ledger query, which explains latency and failure modes.

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?

Opens with the question it answers, then gives the issuer list and the two usage modes. The inline addresses make the sentence dense, but they are load-bearing reference data and the overall text is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both call modes are covered. The one omission is scope: it does not say the verified list is limited to RLUSD/USDC/SOLO, so an agent could wrongly assume it validates arbitrary tokens.

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 100%, so a 3 is the baseline, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between the two parameters: omitting issuer yields the official issuer, while supplying it turns the call into a confirmation/imitation check. That is semantic meaning the schema's 'Optional issuer address to verify' does not convey.

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 question it answers ('is this the real RLUSD / USDC / SOLO?') and names the verification basis (verified official issuers). This is clearly distinct from the siblings check_token_safety and check_wallet_security, which address safety/security rather than issuer authenticity.

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?

Gives explicit invocation modes: 'Give the ticker alone to learn the official issuer, or ticker + issuer to confirm or expose an imitation.' That is clear when-and-how guidance for the two call shapes, though it never states when to prefer a sibling tool over this one.

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