xrpl_flows_etf_flow_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is free and provides daily summaries with specific output fields, but does not explicitly mention whether it is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. The behavior is largely predictable given its summary nature, but the description alone is not fully transparent.

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 sentence, front-loaded with 'Free.' and 'Daily', and every phrase contributes meaning: cost, frequency, and content. It is concise, well-structured, and free of redundancy.

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 is low complexity with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description provides the core content (per-ticker metrics, supply share) and frequency, while the schema covers the lookback parameter. However, it does not specify the output format or any limitations, though for a simple summary tool this is largely adequate.

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 only parameter 'days' with its default and maximum, giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about this parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 is specific and informative: 'Daily ETF flow summary: per-ticker AUM with day-over-day delta, growth rate, and aggregate XRP supply share.' It clearly states the tool's function (summarizing ETF flows) and the exact metrics returned. This distinguishes it from sibling flow tools like xrpl_flows_scan or xrpl_flows_correlation, which are not ETF-specific.

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 useful context (free, daily) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for obtaining ETF flow summaries, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. Thus, usage is only implied, not explicitly guided.

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