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This connector has been replaced by xrpl-referee.

Get Batch DvP Payload

get_batch_dvp_payload
Read-only

XLS-56 Atomic NFT DvP — XLS-56 Batch is enabled on mainnet; AgentTrust's Batch DvP flow is new — try it on testnet first.

Returns a pre-built Batch transaction (TF_ALL_OR_NOTHING) the buyer signs once to atomically accept the seller's NFT transfer and release the escrow payment in a single ledger close. Both legs succeed or both revert — no settlement gap.

Two supported modes:

  • AI audit + atomic settlement: referee evaluates work first; PASS verdict gates entry to the Batch tx. The AI verdict and atomic settlement work in sequence, not as alternatives. Use when the deliverable needs independent verification.

  • Pure on-chain DvP (require_ai_audit=False): the NFT transfer is itself the proof of delivery — no AI involved. XLS-56 handles the entire settlement on-chain. Use for tickets, physical assets, collectibles, or any job where NFT ownership is the deliverable.

Prerequisites:

  • Vault must be in PASS_AWAITING_NFT state (AI PASSed, or ai_audit=False and proof gates satisfied)

  • Seller must have registered their NFTokenCreateOffer via POST /escrow/{id}/nft-offer

Buyer workflow:

  1. Call this tool to get batch_tx_json

  2. Autofill sequences/fees with your XRPL client

  3. Sign the Batch tx with your buyer wallet

  4. Submit to XRPL — NFT arrives and payment releases atomically

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": {
      "escrow_id": "<escrow_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_batch_dvp_payload"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
escrow_idYesThe escrow vault ID for an NFT DvP job in PASS_AWAITING_NFT state.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnly/openWorld/non-idempotent; the description adds the state-machine precondition, the required prior seller action via POST /escrow/{id}/nft-offer, and the four-step buyer workflow showing this tool does not sign or submit. The all-or-nothing settlement semantics and mainnet/testnet readiness note are context the annotations cannot convey. No contradiction with readOnlyHint — it only builds the payload.

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?

Well-structured with labeled modes, prerequisites, and a numbered workflow that front-loads the core purpose. Slightly verbose — the opening sentence mixes a protocol-version note and a testnet caveat that partly repeats the 'try it on testnet first' point — but every block is actionable.

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 one-parameter payload-builder with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: preconditions, mode selection, and the post-call signing/submission steps. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines escrow_id and its required vault state. The description reinforces the PASS_AWAITING_NFT precondition but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 artifact: returns a pre-built Batch transaction (TF_ALL_OR_NOTHING) that the buyer signs once to atomically settle an NFT transfer plus escrow payment. It explicitly distinguishes the two supported modes (AI-gated vs. pure on-chain DvP), which no sibling tool offers. An agent can tell exactly what this produces without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance per mode ('Use when the deliverable needs independent verification' vs. 'Use for tickets, physical assets, collectibles'), states prerequisites (vault in PASS_AWAITING_NFT, seller must have posted nft-offer), and warns to try on testnet first. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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