xrpl_trust_recent_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that the stream is cursor-paginated and free, adding useful behavioral context. However, it omits details such as default time range, ordering, whether events are real-time, or any rate limits, and it does not describe the return format.

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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a fragment. It front-loads the key differentiator (XLS lifecycle events) and includes only essential details (pagination, cost). There is no wasted wording, making it highly skimmable for an AI agent.

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 simple event stream with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview by listing event types and mentioning pagination. However, it lacks return format examples and default time-window behavior, and it does not explain how the lifecycle event types map to the `tx_type` filter. Given the read-only nature, this is minimally viable but not fully 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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, including 'since' as an event-id cursor and 'tx_type' as a transaction type filter. The description's mention of 'cursor-paginated' loosely relates to the `since` and `limit` parameters but adds no concrete parameter semantics. For a moderately covered schema, the description does not need to compensate heavily.

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 identifies the tool as an XLS-70/80/81 lifecycle event stream, enumerating specific event categories (domain creates/deletes, credential activity, permissioned offers, AMM events). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrpl_trust_list_domains. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', relying on the noun phrase 'event stream' to convey the action.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as xrpl_pulse_recent_events or xrpl_trust_list_domains. It implies usage for trust lifecycle event monitoring but does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The 'Free' qualifier offers minimal contextual signal.

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