xrpl_telemetry_get_results

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 payment prerequisite and return shape ('Same shape as xrpl_telemetry_snapshot'), but does not discuss error handling, what happens with an unpaid invoice, or any rate limiting. This is minimal but useful context for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the paid-flow context, then states the action and shape reference, making every word earn its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, timing, and return shape via the sibling reference. It does not detail the entire paid flow, but sibling names like xrpl_telemetry_get_quote and xrpl_telemetry_get_status provide the surrounding context.

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% with 'Paid invoice id' already describing invoice_id. The description reinforces that the invoice must be paid but adds no significant semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full Telemetry snapshot payload'), plus a clear condition ('once invoice is paid'). The phrase 'Paid flow step 3' and 'Same shape as xrpl_telemetry_snapshot' distinguish it from sibling telemetry tools, 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?

It explicitly states when to use: after an invoice is paid, as 'step 3' of a paid flow. It also notes 'no extra charge.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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