Return the last-validated ledger stats (index, close time,
server state, load factor, complete range, build). Wrapped in
the xrpldashboard proof envelope; envelope source is derived from
the actual URL host (local_rippled for loopback / private LAN,
remote_rippled:<host> otherwise) — never hardcoded.
| 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 meaningful behavior: the result is wrapped in a proof envelope, and envelope source is dynamically derived from the URL host ('local_rippled' vs 'remote_rippled:<host>'), never hardcoded. This adds useful context beyond the bare function.
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 two sentences: the first states what is returned, the second adds essential envelope detail. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key aspects: the exact data returned and the envelope wrapping behavior. It lacks any note about error conditions or why this tool exists, but for a simple zero-parameter getter, it is largely complete.
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 there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, this is a baseline 4. The description's mention of envelope source relates to the tool's behavior rather than parameters.
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 identifies the tool's action ('Return') and resource ('last-validated ledger stats'), and enumerates the specific stats (index, close time, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on ledger stats and including the proof envelope detail.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The only context provided is envelope source derivation, which is not a usage guideline.
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.
