Skip to main content
Glama

xrpl-referee

by io.github.eamwhite1

create_agent_wallet

Generate a new XRPL keypair for an agent wallet.

Returns the wallet address and seed. The wallet is NOT yet funded — to activate it on mainnet, send at least 1 XRP to the returned address (the base reserve). Owner reserves are 0.2 XRP per object held.

Funding options:

  • Receive XRP from another wallet (ask your operator or client to send 1 XRP)

  • Buy XRP on an exchange (Coinbase, Kraken, Binance) and withdraw to the address

  • On testnet, use the XRPL faucet: https://xrpl.org/xrp-testnet-faucet.html

Keep the seed secret — anyone with it controls the wallet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: generates keypair, returns sensitive seed, wallet is not funded, and security warning. It could mention that repeated calls create new wallets, but overall sufficient.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (Returns, Funding options, Security). Each sentence adds value, though it is slightly longer than necessary. Could be tightened but remains effective.

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 zero parameters and an output schema assumed present, the description covers purpose, output, funding requirements, and security. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining the output and post-creation steps, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 explicitly states it generates a new XRPL keypair for an agent wallet and returns the address and seed. It clarifies the wallet is not funded, which distinguishes it from funding-related sibling tools like fund_xrpl_wallet_via_coinbase.

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 provides clear context on when to use (to create a wallet keypair) and what to do next (fund via provided options). It implicitly suggests use before funding but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives beyond funding.

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