xrp_send_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral context. It discloses that the private key comes from the environment, which hints at signing and security implications. However, it does not warn about irreversibility of transactions, network fees, or potential failure modes, which are important for a send operation.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Send XRP'). Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 relatively simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the action, source, destination, and authentication mechanism. It lacks mention of broadcast/confirmation behavior, but these are largely implied. The tool's simplicity and clear chain-specific naming keep it complete enough.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., amount and toAddress are self-explanatory). The mention of 'private key from environment' clarifies the sender is not a parameter, which is a minor addition but not substantial enough to raise the score.

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: 'Send XRP from your wallet to another address using private key from environment'. The verb 'send' is specific, the resource (XRP) is named, and the direction (from wallet to address) is explicit. It distinguishes itself well from sibling XRP tools (get_balance, get_transaction_history, etc.) and other chain send tools.

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 clearly communicates when to use this tool: when sending XRP to another address. It also implies a prerequisite (private key from environment) which is a useful contextual cue. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the chain-specific context is sufficient for most cases.

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