xrp_get_ledger_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action ('Get') but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the entry is not found, or any other behavioral traits. The implied read-only nature is not explicitly disclosed.

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 to the meaning, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 relative simplicity and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the return value is or provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's role versus siblings. It is a bare minimum.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a small semantic hint with 'by ID', pointing toward the 'index' parameter, but does not clarify relationships between optional parameters like ledger_index and ledger_hash. This meets 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 'Get specific ledger entry by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('ledger entry') with the key qualifier 'by ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrp_get_account_info or xrp_get_transaction, making its purpose immediately clear.

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. For example, it does not clarify when a user should choose this over xrp_get_account_objects or how it relates to ledger hashes/indexes. The description omits any contextual or prerequisite information.

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