xrpl_flows_correlation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free and describes the daily data frequency and rolling window calculation, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, return format, or data limitations beyond the causation caveat.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with 'Free,' and contains no redundant words. Every phrase adds detail: scope, method, and a clarifying caveat.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it computes. However, it does not explicitly state what the return value looks like (e.g., a series of correlation coefficients), which could be a minor gap.

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 input schema fully describes the single 'days' parameter with a clear description ('Trailing days'), and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 clearly states the tool computes a daily correlation between ETF AUM and XRPL exchange-flow delta across tracked funds, with a 7-day rolling Pearson correlation. The phrase 'Correlation only, not causation' adds specificity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrpl_flows_etf_flow_summary and xrpl_flows_exchange_flow_delta.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The 'Correlation only, not causation' caveat is a methodological note, not a usage guideline.

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