Bidirectional domain verification for an XRPL issuer: decodes the on-chain Domain field and checks the domain's /.well-known/xrp-ledger.toml actually claims the issuer back. verified true/false with reasons — a strong legitimacy signal (its absence is a yellow flag). Price: $0.003 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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the bidirectional process, output (verified true/false with reasons), and price/cost context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects, leaving gaps for a non-trivial tool.
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?
Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence explains core functionality, second adds output and significance, third mentions price and feedback. Could be slightly more focused but efficient overall.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), description covers purpose, process, output format, and pricing. Missing input format details and error conditions, but sufficient for basic usage.
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, the description must compensate but only adds 'for an XRPL issuer'. It does not specify format (e.g., r-address), provide examples, or clarify constraints beyond naming. Minimal added value over the parameter name.
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 it performs 'bidirectional domain verification for an XRPL issuer' with specific steps: decoding on-chain Domain field and checking .well-known file. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_issuer_reputation by focusing on domain linkage verification.
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 implies usage for verifying domain legitimacy ('a strong legitimacy signal, absence is a yellow flag') but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_issuer_reputation or verify_attestation. No when-not or alternative comparisons.
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.
