xrp_get_block

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose what information is returned, potential errors (e.g., invalid ledger index), or any side effects. The parameter description covers 'validated' but the tool description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 redundant or filler content. It efficiently conveys the primary purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but lacks specifics about the returned ledger information (e.g., header, transactions, metadata). Without an output schema, more detail would improve completeness, but the essential purpose is clear.

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 100% with the blockNumber parameter described as 'Ledger index or "validated"'. The tool description's 'by number' adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ledger (block) information by number' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the operation and what is retrieved. It distinguishes from sibling tools like xrp_get_ledger_entry or xrp_get_transaction by focusing on block-level data, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope qualifiers beyond 'by number'.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description only states what the tool does and does not mention when to use it instead of other tools, any prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no 'use this when' or 'see also' language.

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