xrpl_sentinel_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the cost ($0.10) and the returned fields, but does not mention authentication requirements (beyond the payment_signature parameter), error handling, or side effects. The payment disclosure is useful, but other behavioral aspects remain unclear.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the cost and purpose. Every sentence serves a function: the first announces the paid nature, the second defines the action and the return structure. No wasted words.

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 there is no output schema, the description does well to list the return fields (activity_score, activity_level, confidence, etc.). It covers the core functionality and cost but lacks details on error conditions or rate limits. For a classification tool with clear schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the payment context ('Paid ($0.10 USD)') which clarifies the purpose of the payment_signature parameter, and by linking the address to wallet classification.

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 specifies a clear action ('Classify an XRPL wallet') and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like event or trust-related scans. It also enumerates the output, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites beyond the paid requirement. The description is purely declarative and does not mention exclusions or preferred contexts.

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