Ledger timestamp from sequence

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 disclose the return content (UNIX + ISO date), which is useful, but says nothing about behavior for sequences beyond the current tip, error conditions, or the network-scoping implications.

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 verb and output format come immediately. Nothing in it could be removed.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and inline return description, this is roughly adequate. It leaves gaps around the inverse sibling, the meaning of the network parameter, and edge-case behavior, which matter for correct selection.

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% and both parameters (sequence, network) are documented in the schema, including the default resolution for network. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb (resolve) plus the exact resource and output shape (close timestamp, UNIX + ISO date) for a ledger sequence. It does not differentiate from the sibling ledger_sequence_from_timestamp, which performs the inverse mapping and is the obvious source of confusion for an agent.

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 versus ledger_sequence_from_timestamp, nor any precondition such as only valid for already-closed ledgers. The agent must infer the direction of the conversion from the name alone.

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