Reputation for an XRPL issuer: blocklist status + historical detection outcomes. Price: $0.002 USDC. Missing something? Call submit_feedback (free) to request it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issuer | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description needs to disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the cost and the action to take if missing something, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The cost disclosure is valuable, but more detail on behavior would improve transparency.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output, followed by pricing and an alternative action. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. It is highly efficient.
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 low parameter count and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and cost but lacks details on the parameter format and potential response structure. It is adequate but leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the schema beyond the name 'issuer', the description should clarify what constitutes a valid issuer (e.g., wallet address, domain). It only says 'XRPL issuer', which is insufficient for precise parameter understanding.
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 checks reputation for an XRPL issuer, returning blocklist status and historical detection outcomes. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_address or check_transaction.
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 mentions a price ($0.002 USDC) and suggests using submit_feedback if something is missing, providing clear context on when to use this tool and an alternative action. However, it does not explicitly list prerequisites or comparisons to other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: address checks, token checks, price analysis, transaction simulation, path finding, wallet history, pool discovery, attestation, and monitoring all have clear boundaries. While some tools share domain (e.g., check_xrpl_token vs resolve_asset), their purposes are clearly differentiated in descriptions.
Nearly all tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_*, get_*, verify_*, analyze_*, explore_*, find_*, quote_*, watch_*, submit_*). The only slight deviation is 'token_holders', a noun phrase, but it is still concise and follows the same lowercase snake_case style, so it does not create confusion.
20 tools is on the heavier side of the ideal range, but the server's scope—cross-chain security, token analysis, monitoring, attestation, and market data—justifies this breadth. Each tool covers a distinct sub-domain, so the count is reasonable though slightly above the typical 3-15 sweet spot.
The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: token discovery, safety, identity, price, holders, monitoring, address/issuer risk, transaction simulation, route finding, wallet activity, endpoint trust, and attestation. There are no obvious dead ends; users can discover tokens, verify them, track them, and receive alerts—a full lifecycle for crypto risk assessment.
