prepare_transactions_xrp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the output is unsigned, signing happens locally (non-custodial), and the response contains transaction plus fee details. It also surfaces credit cost per action and that actual credits come back in response headers, which the agent cannot infer elsewhere. Missing auth/permission and failure-mode context keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose and the sign/broadcast workflow are front-loaded, and the action/credit bullets are scannable. The credits-and-disclaimer block is somewhat boilerplate repetition, but it is bounded and clearly separated.

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 9-parameter construction tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (unsigned tx + fee details), what to do next, and per-action cost. It stops short of documenting the single supported action's required fields, but the schema covers those at full coverage.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents drops units, fee tiers, destination tags, and sequence override. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Build unsigned XRP transactions ready for signing') and names the resulting artifact. The 'XRP' qualifier cleanly separates it from the many chain-specific prepare_transactions_* siblings.

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 describes the downstream workflow — sign locally with xrp_sign, then broadcast via broadcast_signed_transaction — which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a sequence. It doesn't state exclusions or when a different sibling should be preferred, but the chain scoping makes that fairly obvious.

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