xrp_sign

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full transparency burden. It discusses return values (signedTransactionHex, signedTransactionHash), secret handling (passed as parameter, never env), and a security warning about private key logging. This goes beyond minimal disclosure, though it does not cover error scenarios or off-chain behavior.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then efficiently lays out actions, return values, and security in a few sentences. No redundant content; the SECURITY note is essential and 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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, actions, returns, and security, which is solid for a signing tool. However, it lacks parameter structure details and example usage, which is significant because the schema is empty and the tool has two distinct invocation modes.

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 is empty with 0 parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions secret, transaction object, and raw hex, but does not provide actual parameter names, types, or how the action is selected, leaving ambiguity on how to invoke the tool. The description adds meaning but is not fully precise.

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 explicitly states 'Sign an XRP (Ripple) transaction,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by naming XRP, and further details two action modes (transaction object or raw hex), making the purpose 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 outlines two actions with distinct inputs (transaction object vs. raw hex), giving clear context for when to use each. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the XRP-specific language implies this is for XRP only, and sibling tools are for other chains.

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