Skip to main content
Glama

XRPLHub — XRPLScore & XRPL actions

by io.github.Dcroyalty

submit_grant_application

Apply for a community micro-grant (1–100 RLUSD) paid wallet-to-wallet from the XRPLHub on-chain treasury for rent, utilities, groceries, medical, transport, or childcare. Returns a grant id and status; AI triages, a human approves, approved RLUSD goes to the wallet, no middleman. Params: wallet_address (r..., required), category (RENT|UTILITIES|GROCERIES|MEDICAL|TRANSPORT|CHILDCARE|OTHER, required), amount (1–100, required), description (2–4 sentences, required). No signup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesAmount requested in RLUSD (1–100)
categoryYesGrant category: RENT, UTILITIES, GROCERIES, MEDICAL, TRANSPORT, CHILDCARE, or OTHER
currencyNoPayout currency. Default and recommended: RLUSD
descriptionYesClear description of the need, situation, and urgency (2–4 sentences). Be specific — vague applications are harder for the reviewer to verify.
wallet_addressYesXRPL wallet address where the grant will be sent if approved

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behaviors: it returns a grant id and status, involves AI triage and human approval, pays approved RLUSD directly to the wallet, and has no middleman. It does not cover failure modes or idempotency, but for a submission tool the core behavioral contract is clearly exposed.

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 dense and well-structured: it leads with purpose, then the process and return value, then a compact parameter summary. Every section contributes useful information, though the parameter list partly duplicates the schema. Minor redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully names the return values (grant id and status) and explains the approval and payout flow. It covers amount limits, categories, wallet format, and description requirements. The only notable omission is the optional currency parameter, which the schema covers, so the description is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including constraints and guidance. The description compacts the same parameter information into a quick reference but does not add meaning beyond the schema, apart from emphasizing the r... wallet format and the description length. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply for a community micro-grant,' and immediately bounds it with amount range, eligible categories, and payout mechanism. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like donate_to_community_fund (the opposite direction) and build_xrpl_transaction (general transaction building).

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 makes the intended use obvious: apply when seeking a 1–100 RLUSD micro-grant for listed living expenses. It also conveys the workflow (AI triage, human approval, wallet payout) and removes a potential barrier with 'No signup.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is strong enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All XRPLHub — XRPLScore & XRPL actions 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools generally split cleanly by resource: scores, credentials, MPTs, transactions, and community fund. The three MPT-related tools and the score-lookup vs score-credential pair could briefly overlap in purpose, but their descriptions are detailed enough to resolve the ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with clear verbs such as check, get, list, search, build, submit, verify, donate, and issue. There is no mixing of naming styles or vague generic verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Thirteen tools is well-scoped for a server covering XRPL scores, credentials, MPTs, transaction building, and community fund actions. The 35 supported transaction types are sensibly collapsed behind list and build tools rather than exploding into dozens of endpoints.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: score lookup, credential verification, MPT risk and search, transaction building, and community fund participation. Minor gaps exist, such as no standalone grant-status lookup or explicit score-credential verification endpoint, but these are workable around.

Resources