Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AgentTrust XRPL

by io.github.eamwhite1
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create Testnet Wallet

create_testnet_wallet

Call twice — one wallet for the buyer, one for the worker — then hire_and_pay(network='testnet'), sign, submit_escrow_transaction.

Creates a fresh XRPL testnet wallet funded via the public faucet. Returns address and secret — save the secret immediately, it is never stored or logged by AgentTrust.

Sign with: Python: from xrpl.transaction import sign; from xrpl.models.transactions import EscrowCreate; blob = sign(EscrowCreate.from_xrpl(tx), wallet).blob() JS: const { tx_blob } = wallet.sign(tx)

No real XRP is used, no fees are charged, and vault IDs start with TN-.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_testnet_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that the wallet is funded via the public faucet, that the secret is returned once and 'never stored or logged', and that no real XRP or fees are involved. These are the exact behavioral facts an agent needs before calling a state-creating, externally-dependent tool.

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 call-cardinality and next-step instructions are correctly front-loaded in the first sentence. The inline Python/JS signing snippets are useful for downstream steps but sit somewhat awkwardly inside this tool's description and add length that isn't strictly about invoking this tool.

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 a no-parameter, mutation-flagged tool with an output schema, the description covers everything left unexplained: the faucet dependency, one-time secret handling, testnet-only scope ('vault IDs start with TN-'), and the surrounding workflow. 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.

Parameters4/5

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

There are zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; the schema is closed (additionalProperties: false) and fully covered. The description correctly spends no words on parameters and instead redirects effort to the workflow and result handling.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a fresh XRPL testnet wallet') and immediately scopes it as testnet-only with faucet funding, which distinguishes it from the sibling create_agent_wallet and funding alternatives like fund_xrpl_wallet_via_coinbase. An agent can identify this as the wallet-provisioning entry point for the demo/testnet flow without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit invocation cardinality ('Call twice — one wallet for the buyer, one for the worker') and sequences the follow-on calls (hire_and_pay(network='testnet'), sign, submit_escrow_transaction), naming the siblings to use next. There is no ambiguity about when this tool belongs in the workflow versus the mainnet wallet tools.

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

All AgentTrust XRPL 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