blockchain_fees_xrp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses credit costs and that actual credits are in response headers, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format or any side effects, though as a read-only fee tool this is less critical.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes credit info as a separate block, which is relevant but could be considered extraneous. Overall, it is efficient with no 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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. The description gives network options and credit costs, but does not explain what 'fee recommendations' includes or the structure of the response. For a minimal fee tool, this is adequate but has gaps.

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%: both 'network' (with enum) and 'context' are fully described in the schema. The description only repeats the network names, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline 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's function: 'get fee recommendations' for XRP, with specific network options. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like blockchain_fees_utxo and blockchain_fees_evm by explicitly naming the chain (XRP) and supported networks.

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: when you need fee recommendations for XRP on mainnet or testnet. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling fee tools or system_info, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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