Get RLUSD Quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the quote is 'live' and DEX-routed (volatile, market-derived), which is useful, but it omits quote expiry/slippage behavior and the fact that the call also probes trustline state (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the usage note following. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a two-parameter read-only quote tool this is nearly complete; the remaining gap is that it doesn't clarify how the result should differ in use from the sibling get_dex_quote output.

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%, so both xrp_amount and worker_address are fully documented in the schema, including the trustline-check side use of worker_address. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb+resource+route: 'Get a live XRP to RLUSD conversion quote via the XRPL DEX.' The RLUSD-specific framing implicitly separates it from siblings like get_xrp_price and get_dex_quote, though neither is named explicitly, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: use before creating an RLUSD-denominated escrow, or before claiming an escrow to understand current USD value. That is clear context, but it names no alternative tool and gives no exclusion (e.g. when to prefer get_dex_quote or get_xrp_price instead).

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