xrp_get_account_info

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

With no annotations, the description must convey safety and behavior. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, does not mention what happens for invalid or non-existent accounts, and gives no indication of response structure or error conditions. The promise of 'complete' information is vague without further detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning: it names the action, the resource, and two key content areas ('balance and settings'). It is appropriately concise for a simple getter.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of purpose and key return aspects (balance and settings). It does not enumerate all possible fields, but 'complete account information' implies an exhaustive set. The lack of alternative guidance slightly reduces completeness, but the tool's simplicity keeps the description adequate.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter ('address' described as 'XRP account address'). The description adds no additional meaning about the address format or how it affects the returned data, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete account information'), explicitly listing 'balance and settings' as included content. This distinguishes it from siblings like xrp_get_balance (balance only) and xrp_get_wallet_info (wallet-specific info), making the tool's unique scope evident.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xrp_get_balance, xrp_get_account_objects, or xrp_get_wallet_info. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios that would favor one sibling over another.

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