Return the last finalized 24h XRPL net-change from rlusd_supply_history. freshness_contract='finalized_only' is the machine-readable form of the R1/R2 finalized-window rule. cross_check_status derived from stored vs supply-diff pair. 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 the tool enforces a finalized-only freshness contract, derives a cross_check_status, and wraps results in a proof envelope—valuable context beyond simply 'returns data.' It does not describe error conditions or access requirements, but these are less critical for a read-only query.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no fluff. The second sentence adds meaning by explaining the freshness contract and proof envelope, making every word earn its place.
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?
For a parameterless read tool, the description provides the key output (net-change), the source (rlusd_supply_history), and important qualifiers (finalized, proof envelope). Without an output schema, it could specify the return format more explicitly, but the domain-specific terms are sufficiently explained for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, this scores a 4; the description correctly avoids inventing parameters and focuses on the tool's behavior.
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 opens with 'Return the last finalized 24h XRPL net-change from rlusd_supply_history,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_rlusd_supply (which likely returns current supply) and get_signed_snapshot.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools. However, the specific 'last finalized 24h net-change' phrasing implies its intended use case. With no parameters, usage is straightforward, but there is no explicit comparison to other get_* tools.
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.
