Look up a transaction's result on the ledger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read operation and outlines the returned result fields, but does not mention network behavior, unknown-hash handling, or authentication/rate limits.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful sibling redirect. No redundant or filler content.

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 output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the description still gives useful examples. However, the network parameter is entirely undocumented and the behavior for missing or invalid hashes is unstated, leaving invocation ambiguity for a simple but network-sensitive lookup.

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%. The description clarifies that lookup is by transaction hash, adding meaning for tx_hash, but says nothing about the network parameter, its default, or valid values. With only one of two parameters explained, it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (read a transaction's outcome from the XRP Ledger by hash) and explicitly distinguishes the scope from account lookups. An agent can tell this is the transaction-level lookup, not the account-level one.

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 account-related lookups to lookup_account, which is the closest sibling. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites, but the primary alternative is named clearly.

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