xrp_get_chain_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool returns 'comprehensive' info, but gives no details about response shape, potential rate limits, costs, or what 'network status' specifically includes. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 wasted words. However, it is somewhat under-specified, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what 'chain info' includes to help the agent understand return values. It fails to do so, and the overlap with 'xrp_get_network_info' leaves ambiguity about scope. The low complexity (no params) is offset by the lack of behavioral or output detail.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already covers all possible inputs. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, but no additional explanation is necessary; baseline 4 applies.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('XRP Ledger information'), but the qualifier 'comprehensive' is vague and does not specify what information is actually returned. The existence of a closely named sibling tool 'xrp_get_network_info' further muddies differentiation, as both seem to cover network status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'xrp_get_network_info', 'xrp_get_gas_price', or other information-related siblings. The description provides no context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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