Check Wallet KYC Status

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it caches verified status, unlocks escrows up to $10,000 vs. the $3,000 default, registers results with AgentTrust, and returns cached results on repeated calls. This complements idempotentHint and aligns with readOnlyHint: false, so there is no contradiction.

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 structured into focused sentences: what it does, why it matters, when to call it, and what it returns. Each sentence earns its place, including the Xaman URL and the escrow cap distinction, without redundant filler.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the trigger condition, side effects, idempotence, and return fields. It could slightly improve by clarifying any prerequisites (e.g., wallet ownership or prior KYC initiation), but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the input schema with format and purpose ('The XRPL wallet address (r...)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds some context by mentioning wallet operator and wallet holder, but it does not materially enrich the parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Check and register') with a clear resource ('Xaman KYC verification status') and a target ('wallet operator'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_wallet_sanctions and confirm_wallet_ownership by naming the exact system queried (Xaman) and the action performed (identity verification registration).

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 explicitly says to call this after completing KYC in the Xaman app and notes it is safe to call multiple times. It gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.

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