xrp_block_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds value by listing per-action credit costs, noting they are indicative, and pointing to response headers for actual spend. However, it does not explicitly state that all operations are read-only/non-destructive, nor does it cover error behavior, response format, 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 well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a concise bullet list of actions, and a credits section. All content earns its place, though the credits list repeats '20' for every action and could be condensed to a single line 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and 6 actions, the description does not fully map all parameters to their applicable actions—notably limit and offset are not explicitly tied to the list-transactions actions. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify expected responses and pagination behavior; it leaves these gaps unresolved.

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%, with each parameter already documented including which actions require blockHash/blockHeight or count. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only repeats the action names and credits, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get XRP block details (Block Data product).' It enumerates six distinct actions with one-line definitions, making it immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from chain-specific siblings like evm_block_data or utxo_block_data.

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 implies usage through the tool name and the list of XRP-related actions, and it specifies supported networks. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over the sibling chain-specific tools, nor does it state any exclusions or direct the agent to alternatives for other chains.

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