Skip to main content
Glama

xrpl-referee

by io.github.eamwhite1

Confirm Escrow Transaction

confirm_escrow_transaction
Idempotent

Register the on-chain EscrowCreate transaction hash with the referee.

Call this after submitting the EscrowCreate transaction on XRPL. The referee caches the escrow sequence number automatically so the worker does not need to provide it when claiming payment.

Returns: status: "confirmed", sequence: escrow sequence number.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tx_hashYes64-character hex XRPL transaction hash of the EscrowCreate transaction that locked the funds.
escrow_idYesThe receipt code returned by create_escrow_vault.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that it registers the hash and automatically caches the escrow sequence number, and mentions the return value with 'status' and 'sequence'. Annotations confirm idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description aligns. No contradictions.

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: three sentences covering purpose, usage instruction, and return value. No extraneous text. Information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, annotations present, output schema exists), the description is complete enough. It covers when to use, what it does, and what is returned. Could mention error handling but not essential.

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%, with both parameters fully described. The description does not add meaningful information beyond the schema (e.g., escrow_id is already described as 'receipt code returned by create_escrow_vault'). Baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Register the on-chain EscrowCreate transaction hash with the referee') and the resource (transaction hash with referee). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_escrow_vault or evaluate_escrow_work by specifying this is the confirmation step after creation.

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 explicitly says 'Call this after submitting the EscrowCreate transaction on XRPL', providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the instruction is direct and sufficient for an agent.

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