Skip to main content
Glama

xrpl-referee

by io.github.eamwhite1

Check Wallet Sanctions

check_wallet_sanctions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Screen an XRPL wallet address against the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) sanctions list.

Data is sourced directly from the US Treasury and cached for 24 hours. Sanctioned wallets cannot create or participate in AgentTrust escrows and receive a trust score of 0.

Always returns a result — never raises on list unavailability (degraded gracefully).

Returns: address, sanctioned (bool), list, source, note.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wallet_addressYesThe XRPL wallet address (r...) to screen against the OFAC SDN sanctions list.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable transparency: data is cached for 24 hours, the tool always returns a result and never raises on list unavailability, and it describes consequences for sanctioned wallets. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main action. It uses bullet points for return fields, making it easy to parse. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema detailing return fields, the description covers behavioral completeness: it explains sourcing, caching, fallback behavior, and operational impact. No gaps remain.

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?

The input schema provides a clear description for the single parameter (wallet_address). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add extra meaning. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the tool screens an XRPL wallet against the OFAC SDN sanctions list. The verb 'screen' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform sanctions checks.

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 implies usage context by noting that sanctioned wallets cannot participate in AgentTrust escrows and receive a trust score of 0. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool relative to alternatives, though no direct siblings exist.

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

All xrpl-referee 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources and actions clearly. However, list_marketplace_jobs and list_open_jobs both involve browsing jobs and could be confused, and audit_task overlaps somewhat with evaluate_escrow_work in verifying work quality. Descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate with careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_escrow_vault, list_marketplace_jobs, confirm_wallet_ownership). There are no camelCase or Style deviations, making naming highly predictable.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the set is slightly heavy but reasonably scoped for a multi-featured platform covering job board, escrow, skills, wallet verification, and pricing. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, though some consolidation could be considered.

Completeness2/5

There is a significant gap: list_marketplace_jobs references a claim_job() function that does not exist in the tool set, breaking the primary workflow for agents to accept available bounties. Additionally, there are no update/delete operations for job postings or skill listings, and no explicit escrow cancellation tool.

Resources