xrpl_trust_usage_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'Free' and lists output categories; it does not state that this is a read-only operation, describe any access requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is minimal coverage for a tool that offers no other structured behavioral hints.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key selling point ('Free') and then efficiently enumerates the exact metrics computed. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary explanation; every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and return categories reasonably well. However, it does not clarify how the window is applied, what the output format looks like, or whether there are any caveats about data freshness or computation limits. It is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter, window_days, as 'Trailing days' with clear defaults and bounds (100% schema coverage). The description's 'configurable window' adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 indicates this tool provides an aggregate of PermissionedDomain activity across the ecosystem, listing specific metrics (domain count, operator count, credential and market event totals). This scope differentiates it from per-domain sibling tools like xrpl_trust_list_domains or operator_drilldown, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'summarize'.

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 phrase 'Ecosystem-wide aggregate' implies use for high-level overviews versus detailed per-domain queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case is only implied, not stated directly.

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