xrpl_flows_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the $0.10 payment, which is critical, and lists the return payload. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or if there are rate limits or side effects. For a paid scan tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'Paid' and 'Per-ETF deep dive,' then efficiently lists tiers/tickers and the return payload. Every clause serves a purpose; no wasted words despite the dense information.

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 complex paid tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, target tickers, tiers, and return fields. It does not describe error handling or invalid-ticker behavior, but the essential operational context—ticker universe, cost, and outputs—is present.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by enumerating the complete tracked ticker universe by tier, going beyond the schema's simple examples. It does not add info about payment_signature beyond the schema's 'x402 payment header,' but the paid nature is already highlighted in the description.

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 a specific verb+resource: a per-ETF deep dive for tracked XRP-exposure ETFs, enumerating three tiers and example tickers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like etf_flow_summary by emphasizing 'deep dive' vs. summary, and the return contents (metadata, AUM, history, flow delta) further clarify its unique scope.

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 provides clear context: use this for per-ETF detail across specific US and European ETF tiers, as opposed to aggregate or correlation tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use,' so it falls short of full alternative/exclusion guidance.

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