Skip to main content
Glama

cerberus-index

by com.cerberusindex

resolve_asset

Cross-chain identity for an XRPL token — 'what is this, everywhere it exists?' Resolves the token's real identity across chains and catches IMPOSTORS: a token using a famous symbol (USDC, WBTC, SOLO…) from an issuer that is NOT that asset's canonical deployment is flagged — a fake USDC is a fake USDC on every chain, and a single-chain check misses it. Combines XRPLMeta (the XRPL registry: name, issuer, trust_level), CoinGecko (the canonical multi-chain asset and every chain it lives on), and Cerberus's rug blocklist. Verdict: verified_crosschain | native_xrpl | impostor_suspected | unverified | unknown. Price: $0.008 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
issuerYes
currencyYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it combines XRPLMeta, CoinGecko, and Cerberus data, costs $0.008, returns verdicts, and supports attestation. It also warns about impostor detection, providing a complete safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and adds details on sources, verdicts, cost, and attestation. Each sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose. It is well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: input parameters, data sources, possible verdicts, cost, attestation feature, and feedback channel. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'issuer' and 'currency' implicitly but does not clarify their format (e.g., XRPL address, hex currency code). The 'attest' boolean is explained briefly. Some semantic gaps remain, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: resolving a token's cross-chain identity on XRPL, detecting impostors using multiple sources. It uses a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('asset'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_xrpl_token' by emphasizing multi-chain scope.

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 implies when to use this tool (for cross-chain identity checks) and mentions alternatives like 'submit_feedback' for missing assets. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear for an AI agent to differentiate from single-chain tools.

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