XRPName

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses accepted TLDs, defaulting behavior, returned fields (availability, price in XRP/RLUSD, owner, profile metadata, registration URL), and handling of invalid inputs via invalid_domains. It doesn't explicitly state the read-only nature, but the verb 'check' implies it.

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 sentences, with the core purpose and examples front-loaded. It is dense but each sentence contributes meaningful detail; no wasted words.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains the main return values (availability, price, owner, metadata, URL) and input constraints (1-25, TLD handling). It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use the tool, though it doesn't detail the exact response structure.

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 schema already covers the 'domains' parameter with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by enumerating the specific TLDs supported (.xrp, .xrpl, .xrpfi, .rlusd), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'defaults to .xrp'.

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 clear verb ('Check'), resource ('XRPL domains'), and scope ('1 to 25'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_domain_profile and register_domain by focusing on registration status and cost.

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 explicit example questions (e.g., 'is <name>.xrp taken?', 'how much does <name>.xrp cost?') that clearly indicate when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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 provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return values (payment landed, offer created, etc.) and implies a read-only check. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but for a simple read operation this is minimally adequate.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, return info, usage guidance. Front-loaded with the action and resource. No fluff or redundant 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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, usage, return values, and sibling differentiation. It lacks mention of error handling or prerequisites, but is otherwise complete for a check operation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds context ('domain you tried to register') and an example value ('alice.xrp'), which reinforces usage beyond the schema description. This adds marginal but clear value.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'backend order status for a domain you tried to register'. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'check_domains' by noting the difference in functionality (deeper vs. availability).

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 explicit usage context ('when a user asks...') and contrasts with 'check_domains'. However, it does not mention when not to use other siblings like 'check_tx_status', which could be a relevant alternative for transaction-level queries.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns status and engine result code, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only operation, or any error conditions, rate limits, or side effects. A 3 is appropriate as it provides basic but not comprehensive transparency.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and provides essential details efficiently.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, parameter format, and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter with a pattern. The description adds a brief explanation ('64-character hex XRPL transaction hash'), which offers marginal additional value over the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 specifies the verb 'Check', the resource 'validation status of an XRPL transaction', the method 'by hash', and implicitly distinguishes from domain-related siblings like check_domains. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after send_signed_tx to confirm whether the transaction was validated on-ledger.' This provides clear context. It does not include when not to use it, but given the sibling tools are unrelated, this is acceptable.

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 provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns null fields gracefully when no profile is set, and optionally includes on-chain history. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover error handling for invalid domains or 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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and parameters. Every word adds value—no filler. It efficiently conveys the essential 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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers purpose, usage examples, parameter explanation, and behavior (null handling). It lists the profile contents fully, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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% (both parameters documented). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that include_history retrieves the ownership timeline, and gives a domain example 'alice.xrp'. This provides practical context for agents.

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 retrieves the full public profile of an XRPL domain, listing specific fields like owner, metadata, social handles, and chain addresses. It also provides example user queries ('show me X.xrp') that directly map to this tool, distinguishing it from siblings like check_domains or register_domain.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool using user query examples ('show me X.xrp', 'who owns X.xrp?'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, but the examples serve as strong guidance.

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 present, so the description must provide behavioral context. It describes the types of results (incoming, outgoing, pending mint), but lacks details on read-only nature, pagination, or performance constraints, which is acceptable for a simple query tool but not comprehensive.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence defines the tool's output categories, and the second provides concrete usage guidance. 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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must explain return values. It names the three categories of offers and hints at possible follow-up actions (accept, cancel, continue-mint). This is adequate for a get tool, though a bit more detail on the structure would be beneficial.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter (address). The description does not add further semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves pending XRPL domain operations (incoming offers, outgoing offers, paid-but-not-yet-minted orders) for a wallet, with specific use case examples differentiating it from sibling tools like check_domains or get_portfolio.

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?

Explicit when-to-use scenarios are provided (e.g., 'do I have any pending transfers?', 'what offers are waiting on me?'), but the description does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns (domain with TLD, length, primary flag, subname flag, quick-action URLs) and what it does not include. Absence of side effects or auth details is acceptable for a read-only list 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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core function, then provides use cases, return details, exclusions, and requirement. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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?

Adequately complete for a list tool with sibling differentiation. Minor gap: does not explain pagination behavior when domain count exceeds limit, nor details on 'quick-action URLs'. Otherwise thorough.

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% for all four parameters. The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, but the schema already adequately documents each parameter. 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?

Clearly states it lists XRPL domains owned by a wallet address. Distinguishes from sibling get_domain_profile by specifying what fields are not included (nftoken_id, image, mint time) and directing the user to that tool for one domain.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'what domains do I own?', 'show me my domains', or viewing another wallet's holdings. Also specifies when not to use it (for detailed domain info, use get_domain_profile instead).

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?

Describes the full output: creative name+TLD combos with category, availability check, pricing, and register link. Since annotations are absent, this carries the full burden and does so well, though it omits details like ordering or error handling.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose with examples, the second explains return value and usage triggers. Front-loaded and 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?

For a recommendation tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear picture of inputs, outputs, and usage. It lacks details on result ordering or potential errors, but is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds example values for query but does not significantly augment the schema's explanations, meeting baseline expectations.

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 generates AI-recommended domain suggestions based on a keyword or theme, differentiating it from sibling tools like check_domains which likely verify specific domains. Examples like 'tom', 'crypto', 'defi' clarify the scope.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'when a user asks "suggest names", "find me a domain about X", or "give me some .xrp ideas"'. This provides clear contextual triggers with no ambiguity.

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?

The description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns a link, the registration happens in a browser, the website handles the order and wallet signing. It clearly states limitations ('the MCP does NOT build or broadcast the payment'), which is critical for an agent to avoid misuse. No annotations exist to contradict.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explicitly state the return value is a link, but it is strongly implied ('Get the link'). The tool is simple with only 2 parameters, and the description covers usage, behavior, and parameter guidance. Minor gap in not describing error cases.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by specifying 'Pass refcode if a referral applies' beyond the schema's generic description, and it gives an example domain format that matches 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 specifies the exact action ('Get the link to register') and the resource (domains with specific TLDs like .xrp, .xrpl). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_domains (checking availability) and recommend_domain (recommending).

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 explicit usage triggers ('Use when the user says "register X.xrpfi" or "buy X.xrp"') and clarifies what the tool does not do (does not build or broadcast the payment). However, it omits explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternatives.

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 burden of disclosure. It states that it returns the primary name and full list, and the found:false edge case, but it does not detail the response structure, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is acceptable for a read-only lookup but could be richer.

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 concise, two sentences, with the core purpose presented first and usage examples secondary. No wasted words.

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 lookup tool with one required parameter and two optional ones, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation, including an edge case. It lacks a detailed output format description, but since no output schema exists, a slightly richer return description 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented there. The description adds no extra semantic detail about limit or include_history, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: reverse resolution from an XRPL address to its primary XRPName and all owned names. It distinguishes itself from get_domain_profile by explicitly framing it as 'Reverse resolution' and providing example user queries.

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 use-case phrases ('who owns [address]?', 'look up this wallet') and suggests chaining with get_domain_profile. It does not mention when not to use the tool or list alternative tools, but the provided context is clear.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that MCP only provides a link, does not broadcast transaction, and that setting occurs in browser. Good transparency.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no fluff. Could be slightly more structured but 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?

Given single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, description adequately covers action, workflow, and prerequisite. Complete for agent use.

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 covers 100% of parameter with description; the description only repeats the example. No additional semantic value beyond 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'link to set a domain as your wallet's primary', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like register_domain or check_domains.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('make X.xrp my primary') and mentions prerequisite (wallet must own domain). Does not explicitly list exclusions but context is sufficient.

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