xrp_get_account_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It simply states a read operation without mentioning whether results are paginated, whether the optional 'type' filter limits the 'all objects' claim, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 the large set of sibling tools with overlapping getter functionality, the description is too sparse to help an agent select the correct tool. It does not explain what constitutes an 'object', mention the type filter, or clarify how it differs from more specific getters. The lack of an output schema further increases the need for context that is not provided.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage ('Account address' and 'Filter by object type'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context by tying the purpose to an account, but it does not enhance the meaning of either parameter beyond the schema.

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 'Get all objects owned by an account' clearly states the verb (get), the resource (objects owned by an account), and the scope (all). It is not a tautology and provides a clear basic purpose, but it does not differentiate from more specific sibling tools like xrp_get_escrows or xrp_get_nfts.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xrp_get_escrows or xrp_get_nfts. It only implies a general use case for retrieving all account objects, but does not mention when specialized getters would be more appropriate, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites.

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