Skip to main content
Glama

cerberus-index

by com.cerberusindex

check_transaction

Simulate an unsigned XRPL transaction and tell you what it will ACTUALLY do — before you sign it. Pass the transaction JSON; get back (1) its intent in plain language, (2) a live-ledger dry-run (simulate): would it succeed, and the exact balance changes per account — computed, never submitted, never signed — and (3) drain vectors flagged: handing over your signing key (SetRegularKey / SignerListSet), disabling your master key, enabling clawback, partial-payment tricks, trustlines to blocklisted issuers, sends to flagged addresses. Verdict: danger | caution | safe | unknown. A transaction that would fail on-chain is reported as such. Price: $0.010 USDC. Missing something? Call submit_feedback (free) to request it. Pass attest=true to also get an Ed25519-SIGNED attestation of this verdict — portable proof you can log, hand to a counterparty, or verify later with verify_attestation (free) or the published key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attestNo
accountNo
transactionYes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It explains the tool simulates (never submits or signs), computes results live, reports failure, and costs $0.010 USDC. It also notes optional attestation. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but front-loaded with the main purpose and outputs. Every sentence adds value (pricing, attestation, feedback path). It is well-structured with natural breaks between functionality, pricing, and next steps. Could be slightly more concise but effectively communicates.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (simulation, multiple outputs, pricing, attestation), the description covers nearly all aspects: how it works, what it returns, cost, and pointers to related tools. No output schema exists, so the description adequately explains return values. Sibling tools are listed for context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'transaction' (pass JSON) and 'attest' (get signed attestation) but does not explicitly clarify the 'account' parameter. The description is rich enough for inference but lacks direct param documentation for all 3 parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool simulates an unsigned XRPL transaction and reveals its actual effects before signing. It specifies the resource (unsigned transaction) and the outputs (intent, dry-run, drain vectors, verdict), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_address or check_alerts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use this tool before signing a transaction to understand its impact. It hints at alternatives by directing missing features to submit_feedback and mentioning verify_attestation for attestation verification. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but provides clear context.

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

All cerberus-index toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources