Skip to main content
Glama

cerberus-index

by com.cerberusindex

find_best_path

Find the safest EXECUTABLE route to acquire an XRPL token and screen every hop. Unlike quote_amm (one direct AMM pool), this asks the ledger for real payment paths (order books + AMM + multi-hop) and runs the rug-safety engine over every issuer and gateway the route touches — a clean token reached through a hop that can freeze or claw back mid-route is a trap a destination-only check misses. Returns the cheapest route, its effective price, hop count, and a verdict: route_safe | route_caution | route_unsafe | no_route, with the risk on each hop. Pass your account for routes specific to your trustlines, or omit it for an indicative route. Price: $0.006 USDC. Missing something? Call submit_feedback (free) to request it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNo
to_amountNo
to_issuerYes
from_issuerNo
to_currencyYes
from_currencyNoXRP

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, description bears full burden and exceeds expectations: discloses return format (cheapest route, price, hop count, verdict and per-hop risk), pricing ($0.006), and screening behavior (checks each issuer/gateway for freeze/clawback). No contradiction or omission.

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?

Information-dense but well-structured: front-loads purpose, then differentiation, then details, then price. Each sentence adds value. Slightly long but efficient for the complexity covered.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers all major aspects: route discovery, safety screening, return values, pricing, and alternative (submit_feedback). Fully sufficient for a query tool with many siblings.

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?

0% schema coverage means description must compensate. It explains account (optional for indicative vs trustline-specific) and implicitly covers to_currency/to_issuer via 'acquire an XRPL token'. Does not detail from_issuer, to_amount, or from_currency default (only shown in schema). Some gaps remain.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Find' and resource 'safest EXECUTABLE route' to acquire an XRPL token, clearly distinguishing it from sibling quote_amm (one direct AMM pool). It explains the ledger query and rug-safety engine, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with quote_amm, guiding when to choose this tool (multi-hop route with safety screening). Advises passing account for trustline-specific routes or omitting for indicative route. Does not list exclusions 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