transactions_data_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 cost (110 credits, indicative, returned in response headers) and the supported networks, which is useful context, but says nothing about auth requirements, error cases, or whether results are cached/finalized.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then networks and cost. The credit boilerplate is slightly verbose but earns its place by disclosing billing behavior.

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?

A read-only lookup with 100% parameter documentation and no output schema; the description covers the two things the schema cannot (supported networks and cost). Nothing essential for a correct call is missing, though chain-routing guidance would fully close the gap.

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 the enum for network is declared, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description only restates 'transaction hash' and the network list, adding no syntax or format details beyond the structured fields. Baseline 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'get transaction details by transaction hash' on the XRP network. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the chain-specific siblings (evm, solana, utxo, kaspa), though the name and 'XRP' label imply the chain routing.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing guidance. With four sibling transaction tools for other chains, the agent gets no explicit statement that this is the XRP-chain variant and should be selected only for XRP hashes.

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