Get RLUSD Quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it checks trustline status (via worker_address) and returns slippage warnings, which is useful but not extensive. It doesn't discuss potential errors or network behavior, but for a read-only operation, this is adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded: a single sentence for purpose, a usage line, and a return-field list. No redundant information; every sentence earns 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only quote, 2 parameters), the description covers the essential usage context and return fields. The presence of an output schema (as indicated) means the return values are already structured, so the description need not elaborate further. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already well-documented. The description doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates the purpose in prose. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 states the tool's function: 'Get a live XRP to RLUSD conversion quote via the XRPL DEX.' It specifies the resource (XRP to RLUSD conversion) and the method (via XRPL DEX), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_xrp_price (general price) and get_dex_quote (generic DEX quotes).

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 clear usage context: 'Use before creating an RLUSD-denominated escrow or before claiming an escrow if you want to understand the current USD value.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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