Skip to main content
Glama

cerberus-index

by com.cerberusindex

verify_price

Cross-chain value truth for an XRPL token — 'is the price real?' Reconstructs the token's USD price on XRPL (XRPLMeta price × live XRP/USD) and checks it two ways: for a stablecoin, whether the PEG still holds (is USDC actually ~$1 here?); for any cross-chain asset, whether the XRPL price has DIVERGED from its canonical price elsewhere (manipulation, stale liquidity, or arbitrage). Weighs it against real 24h volume — a price on a dead pool is a number, not a market. Verdict: price_consistent | price_divergent | depegged | thin_liquidity | native_no_reference | 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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the verification process (reconstructing USD price, checking peg, divergence, volume) and discloses optional signed attestation. It does not mention error handling or authorization, but provides substantial behavioral insight.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core question. It is informative but could be slightly more concise by removing the example price line. Overall, each sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (verdict types, price, optional attestation). It covers required inputs and behavior but lacks details on error conditions or missing tokens.

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 explains the attest parameter well but does not explicitly define issuer and currency, though context implies they identify the token. The description adds value for attest but is insufficient for required 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's purpose: cross-chain value truth for an XRPL token, checking if a price is real. It uses specific verbs (reconstructs, checks, weighs) and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_xrpl_token by focusing on price verification.

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 explains when to use the tool (for stablecoins, cross-chain assets) and mentions alternatives like submit_feedback for missing features. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with related tools such as check_xrpl_token.

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