xrp_send_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it provides no details such as trustline requirements, transaction fee implications, failure conditions, or whether the user needs specific permissions. It simply states the action without any deeper context.

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 with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. It earns its place with a clear subject-verb-object 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?

The description omits crucial contextual information: it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a transaction hash or confirmation), any prerequisites like a trustline, or how it differs from the sibling xrp_transfer_token. This is especially problematic given the lack of an output schema.

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%, and the tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the parameter names and brief descriptions. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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 (send) and the object (custom token) to a recipient, making the purpose evident. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool xrp_transfer_token, which likely serves a similar function, so it misses the opportunity for full differentiation.

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 xrp_transfer_token or other transaction tools. The presence of a similarly named sibling requires explicit differentiation, but the description offers no context or exclusions.

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