xrpl_pulse_network_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the contents of the output and notes 'Free,' implying no cost. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe response format, or explain the meaning/accuracy of 'snapshot freshness' beyond a label. It adds some context but still leaves open basic behavioral aspects.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the 'Free' note and then lists the key metrics. Every word contributes to understanding, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple zero-parameter interface and absence of an output schema, the description lists all the main metrics returned and implies a current snapshot with 24h coverage. It is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool and understand the general output, though it could clarify whether it's a live view or historical range and how 'freshness' is computed.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. No parameter explanations are needed, and the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies. The description correctly focuses on output rather than inputs.

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 it provides an XRPL network summary and enumerates the exact metrics included (funded addresses, trustline count, offer count, 24h active addresses, snapshot freshness). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on events, trust, or telemetry, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It implies use for network-level statistics through its name and metric list, but does not name sibling tools or state that other tools should be used for specific other needs. The guidance is entirely implicit.

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