xrp_import_wallet

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 only restates the action without mentioning side effects, security implications, whether the seed is stored, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a wallet-related operation.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 only one parameter, but the description does not explain what the tool returns after import, whether it validates the seed, or how it differs functionally from creating a wallet. With no output schema, the agent lacks essential context to anticipate the outcome, making the description incomplete.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'seed' as a string starting with 's', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the action 'Import' with the resource 'existing XRP wallet' and the method 'from seed', making it distinct from sibling tools like xrp_create_wallet or xrp_generate_address. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 use case is implied by the verb 'Import' and the phrase 'existing XRP wallet', suggesting it is for wallets that already exist. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like xrp_create_wallet, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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