Skip to main content
Glama

xrpl-referee

by io.github.eamwhite1

Confirm Wallet Ownership

confirm_wallet_ownership

Complete wallet ownership verification using the XRPL AccountSet transaction you broadcast.

Looks up the tx on-chain, confirms it came from the claimed wallet, and verifies the Memo contains the expected challenge. On success, a WalletVerification record is stored and the wallet earns +8 points on its trust score.

Returns: verified (bool), wallet, method, tx_hash, message.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tx_hashYesThe XRPL transaction hash of the AccountSet tx you submitted with the challenge in a Memo.
issuer_idNoIf you are verifying ownership for an NFT issuer registry entry, provide its ID to mark it verified.
wallet_addressYesThe XRPL wallet address (r...) you are verifying.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds behavioral context: it stores a WalletVerification record and adds +8 points. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't discuss idempotency or potential duplicate side effects.

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?

Description is concise: four sentences front-loading purpose, followed by process details and return values. No extraneous content.

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 tool's complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, return values, and context. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds context by explaining tx_hash as 'the XRPL transaction hash of the AccountSet tx you submitted with the challenge in a Memo' and wallet_address as 'The XRPL wallet address (r...) you are verifying.' This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: complete wallet ownership verification using an XRPL AccountSet transaction. It specifies the on-chain lookup, confirmation of source, Memo verification, record storage, and point award. This is distinct from sibling tools like check_wallet_sanctions and get_wallet_verification_challenge.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage after broadcasting an AccountSet transaction but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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