xrp_get_network_info

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 does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or details about what the returned network configuration includes. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, but no further transparency is offered.

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 unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose in a concise manner, earning a high score for structure.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context by naming the resource and the kind of information retrieved. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'network configuration' includes, but for this simple tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema is trivially complete. According to the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. No additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 tool's function: retrieving XRP Ledger network configuration and connection status. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('network configuration and connection status'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like xrp_get_chain_info, the purpose is distinct enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. Given the presence of similar network-related sibling tools, this is a notable gap.

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