Look up an account's balance and state on the ledger

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does establish this as a read-only state lookup and names the three returned quantities, but it is silent on the failure mode for a non-existent/unfunded account, whether the call requires a specific network, and any rate or cost constraints.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the capability and its returned fields come first, followed by the disambiguation clause. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is rightly omitted, and the sibling disambiguation is present. But against a 0%-covered two-parameter schema with no annotations, the missing address format and network semantics leave real gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Account's address' is never defined in terms of XRP classic address format, and the optional 'network' parameter with an empty-string default is never mentioned at all, leaving the agent to guess which ledger is queried.

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 ('Read an XRP Ledger account's on-ledger state') and enumerates exactly what is returned: balance in drops, owned-object count, and next transaction sequence. It explicitly demarcates itself from the sibling resolve_did, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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 routes the agent to resolve_did when a DID Document is wanted, which is a genuine when-not clause against a real sibling. However, nothing is said about when *not* to use this tool for other ledger data (e.g. transactions vs lookup_transaction), so the guidance covers only one of several plausible confusions.

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