Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AgentTrust

by io.github.eamwhite1
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin
This connector has been deprecated

This connector has been replaced by xrpl-referee.

Batch Wallet Trust Scores

batch_wallet_trust_scores

Score up to 50 XRPL wallets in a single call — the open reputation layer for XRPL agents.

All addresses are scored in parallel. Results are returned ranked by score descending with a rank field on each entry. Fee: $0.10 (XRP or RLUSD on XRPL).

Use cases:

  • Rank candidates before awarding a job

  • Screen a shortlist of bidders for counterparty risk

  • Build agent directories or leaderboards

  • Pre-hire due diligence on multiple wallets at once

Returns: {count, batch_size, results: [{address, score, rank, signals, ...}]}

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "addresses": "<addresses>"
    },
    "name": "batch_wallet_trust_scores"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkNo'mainnet' (default) or 'testnet'. Testnet batches are free (fee_hash optional).mainnet
fee_hashNoHash of a $0.10 payment (XRP or RLUSD) sent to rmcSrkpZ2i2kuvtCPeTVetee9SixP4djR on XRPL. Optional when network='testnet' (free).
addressesYesList of XRPL wallet addresses (r...) to score. Maximum 50 per call.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false and openWorld=true but say nothing about cost or mechanics; the description supplies the critical gating facts: addresses are scored in parallel, results come back ranked descending with a rank field, and the call costs $0.10 in XRP or RLUSD with testnet batches free. Cost and payment requirements are exactly the kind of pre-invocation context an agent needs and cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the sibling-distinguishing scope, followed by compact use cases. The closing 'Returns: {count, batch_size, results: [...]}' line duplicates a declared output schema and is the one part that does not fully earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paid, open-world batch read, the agent knows the limit (50), the cost and accepted currencies, the free testnet path, the execution model (parallel), and the result ordering. With an output schema present, the description need not say more about return values, so nothing essential is missing.

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% and every parameter (addresses, network, fee_hash) is already documented in the schema, including the 50-address maximum and the testnet-free rule. The description's 'up to 50' and fee mention largely restate that, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Score up to 50 XRPL wallets in a single call'. The batch framing and the 50-address cap distinguish it unambiguously from the singular sibling get_wallet_trust_score, and 'open reputation layer for XRPL agents' pins the domain.

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?

Four concrete use cases (ranking candidates before a job award, screening bidders, building directories, pre-hire due diligence) give the agent clear situational triggers. It stops short of naming an alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use condition (e.g. 'for a single wallet use get_wallet_trust_score'), so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All AgentTrust toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources