get_account_lines

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 explains the scope of returned data ('all tokens the account holds or can receive') but does not explicitly state read-only status, pagination behavior, or any rate limits or authorization constraints, which are important for safe invocation.

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, using two short sentences to communicate the tool's core function and the range of results. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no filler or redundant words.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide enough context about return values and behavior. It explains what the result contains (token balances) but fails to describe the response structure, limit truncation semantics, or network-specific ledger details, leaving gaps for a tool with four parameters.

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 provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (account, peer, limit, network), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, such as the effect of peer filtering or the default limit behavior, so it correctly sits at the baseline.

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 starts with the action verb 'Get' and specifically identifies the resource as 'trust lines (token balances)' for an XRPL account. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_account_info and get_account_transactions by detailing that it shows all tokens the account holds or can receive.

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 implies when to use the tool (to retrieve trust lines/token balances) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention more specific sibling tools like get_account_currencies, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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