xrpl_pulse_rlusd_distribution

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 analytical behavior (categorization logic, correction of misinterpretation, and RLUSD face value units), which adds useful context. However, it does not address whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has rate limits—typical transparency concerns for tools without annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on output categories and interpretation. The opening 'Free.' is slightly tangential but still informative. No wasted words; each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior and output.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining the return structure (by_exchange, to_labeled_non_exchange, unattributed, to_exchange_pct, mint_context) and the interpretive context. It fully equips an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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 only parameter, 'days', is fully documented in the schema with description, default, and max values. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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's function: it tracks RLUSD mint-to-CEX distribution by splitting outgoing RLUSD into by_exchange, to_labeled_non_exchange, and unattributed categories. This is specific to RLUSD mint distribution, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cex_attribution or exchange_flow_delta. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 for when to use this tool—when analyzing fresh RLUSD mints to avoid misinterpreting them as XRP sell-pressure. It implies the tool is the correct choice for RLUSD distribution analysis, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Context is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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