Return the current amendments state (enabled / in-flight /
superseded / unrecognized-enabled) with cross_check_status
derived from the responding node's feature-RPC vs Amendments
ledger-object concurrence. Wrapped in the proof envelope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cross_check_status is derived from the node's feature-RPC vs Amendments ledger-object concurrence and that results are wrapped in a proof envelope, adding useful context beyond a simple getter. However, it does not explain error behavior, prerequisites, or what the proof envelope contains.
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?
The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Return the current amendments state') and then adds necessary detail. It is efficient and avoids fluff, but the structure is slightly convoluted with multiple clauses, though not excessively long.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core return values (amendment states and cross_check_status) and mentions the proof envelope. It is missing details on the exact structure of the proof envelope and semantics of 'unrecognized-enabled', but it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it instead focuses on the output semantics, which is appropriate.
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 the tool returns the current amendments state, enumerates the specific states (enabled/in-flight/superseded/unrecognized-enabled), and mentions the derived cross_check_status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_unl_status or get_ledger_stats, which focus on different aspects.
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 the tool is used when you need current amendment status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over other tools or provide any exclusions/alternatives. It mentions no competing tools, leaving usage guidance to inference.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action, from amendments and AMM pools to RLUSD supply and whale events. Even the two whale-related tools have clear boundaries: events include all events, while watchlist focuses on tagged-watchlist events. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent get_<resource> pattern, with the sole exception being verify_snapshot_signature, which correctly uses a verb for a verification action. The naming is uniform, readable, and predictable throughout.
15 tools is at the upper end of the ideal range, but each tool covers a distinct aspect of the XRPL dashboard domain, from ledgers and RLUSD to RWA and UNL. The scope feels well-calibrated for a read-only dashboard server, with no redundant or trivial tools.
The tool set provides comprehensive read-only coverage of the dashboard's features, including amendment status, AMM pools, ledger stats, MPT, RLUSD supply/flow, RWA pools/families, token attestations, UNL, whale events/watchlist, and signed snapshots with verification. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.
