get_domain_profile

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 adds value by mentioning the optional include_history parameter and noting that 'Returns null fields gracefully if no profile is set,' which informs the agent about edge-case behavior. However, it does not discuss potential errors, network effects, or prerequisites like domain ownership, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, when to use it, and behavior on missing profiles. The most critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no wasteful repetition or filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description effectively communicates the return contents by listing the profile fields and the graceful null behavior. It also covers usage guidance and the optional history flag. However, it does not address what happens if the domain itself is not found, leaving a minor gap in error-case coverage.

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 input schema already documents both parameters well. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'pass include_history=true' merely references the parameter). This matches the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage, as the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the full public profile of a single XRPL domain.' It enumerates exactly what the profile contains (owner, NFT token ID, metadata, avatar, etc.), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_domains or register_domain.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool by providing example user queries ('show me X.xrp', 'who owns X.xrp?', etc.). This is clear context for triggering, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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