xrp_get_amm_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get info,' which implies a read-only operation without confirming it. It does not describe what info is returned, whether any side effects occur, or if special permissions are needed, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is structurally efficient but lacks key details, earning a mid-range score for conciseness that balances brevity and substance.

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 tool has nested object parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a vague one-liner. It does not clarify the need for both assets, the meaning of issuer/currency, or what 'info' will be returned, leaving the agent unprepared to invoke it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description entirely fails to explain that asset1 and asset2 are the two assets defining the AMM pool. The nested structure (issuer, currency) is undocumented, so the agent cannot infer valid input formats or relationships between parameters.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('AMM pool'), making it a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like xrp_get_offers or xrp_get_ledger_entry, which also retrieve XRP-related data, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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. The description does not mention appropriate contexts, prerequisites (e.g., the pool must exist), or any exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for selecting this tool among many getters.

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