xrpl_flows_cross_border_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is free, limits data to institutional/exchange wallets, and returns aggregates, corridors, and a coverage block. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential limitations like rate limits, but it provides meaningful context about output composition and data scope, going beyond a mere restatement of the tool name.

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 extremely concise, using three short, front-loaded segments that convey value ('Free'), purpose, and constraints. Every phrase adds information without redundancy, and the structure allows quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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?

For a simple two-parameter query tool without annotations or output schema, the description gives a useful overview of the result contents, mentioning the key output types and data scope. It might be lacking detail on the format of 'coverage block' and any data freshness or pagination behaviors, but the core functionality is adequately described and sufficient for most selection and invocation purposes.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (window_days and top_corridors) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so a 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 identifies the tool as providing XRPL cross-border settlement flow, listing specific output components (country-pair aggregates, top corridors, coverage block) and a scope constraint (institutional/exchange wallets only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrpl_flows_scan or xrpl_flows_correlation, which focus on different flow analyses.

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 gives clear context by specifying the data scope ('Institutional/exchange wallets only') and stating it is free, implying it is appropriate for cross-border flow queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the specific focus on cross-border settlement and the output types provides enough guidance to differentiate from sibling tools.

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