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This connector has been replaced by xrpl-referee.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 Wallet Trust Score

get_wallet_trust_score
Read-onlyIdempotent

Open reputation layer for XRPL agents — returns raw points (max 133) plus score_100 (0–100 normalised) for any wallet.

Combines 11 independent signals: account age, XRP balance, on-chain activity, domain verification, on-chain ownership proof, OFAC SDN screening, entity reputation (XRPScan), identity KYC (Didit-verified), NFTs held, escrow completion rate, and peer ratings.

Free to query. Rate limit: 20 calls per hour per IP. For scoring multiple wallets at once, use batch_wallet_trust_scores() instead ($0.10 per batch of up to 50).

Score bands: below 30 = low-trust, 30–60 = moderate, 60+ = established. KYC-verified wallets (kyc_verified: true) can create escrows up to $10,000.

Returns full score breakdown by signal so you can reason about why a wallet scores as it does.

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": {
      "wallet_address": "<wallet_address>"
    },
    "name": "get_wallet_trust_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkNo'mainnet' (default) or 'testnet'. Testnet wallets score on activity within the testnet ledger.mainnet
wallet_addressYesThe XRPL wallet address (r...) to score.

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 already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantially more: rate limit of 20 calls per hour per IP, free-of-charge status, numeric ranges of the return values, score-band interpretation thresholds, and the downstream consequence that KYC-verified wallets can create escrows up to $10,000. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 output description and the batch alternative are front-loaded, and every line carries usable information (rates, bands, cost comparison). It is slightly long, and the KYC/escrow-limit line is tangential to the act of calling this tool, but nothing is filler.

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?

With a 2-parameter schema, an existing output schema, and full annotation coverage, the only open questions for an agent are cost, rate limits and how to read the numbers — all of which are answered. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the network enum semantics. The description adds interpretation of the resulting score but nothing about wallet_address or network syntax, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (returns a trust score for a wallet) and immediately names what the score is composed of (11 signals, raw points max 133 plus score_100). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing at batch_wallet_trust_scores for multi-wallet scoring, so an agent can tell it apart from check_wallet_kyc or check_wallet_sanctions.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition for the alternative: use batch_wallet_trust_scores for multiple wallets, with the cost model ($0.10 per batch of 50) versus free single queries. It does not explicitly say when to prefer check_wallet_sanctions or check_wallet_kyc instead, so routing against the narrower siblings is left implicit.

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