Skip to main content
Glama

xrpl-referee

by io.github.eamwhite1

Evaluate Escrow Work

evaluate_escrow_work
Destructive

Submit proof of completed work against an existing escrow vault.

On approval, payment releases automatically — no EscrowFinish needed. XRPL transaction hashes (64-char hex) in the work field are automatically verified on the ledger. Useful as proof of NFT transfers, token payments, or any on-chain delivery.

Returns on PASS: status: "approved", auto_finish_queued: True.

Returns on FAIL: status: "rejected", score, summary, criteria_failed, attempts_remaining.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workYesWork submission or proof of completion. XRPL tx hashes (64-char hex) are auto-verified on the ledger.
escrow_idYesThe receipt code provided by the buyer when creating the vault.
task_categoryNoEvaluation rubric. One of: default, creative, code, data, data_analysis, bug_bounty, legal, supply_chain.default
evidence_linksNoUp to 3 URLs that are fetched and snapshotted at submission time as supporting evidence.
require_consensusNoRequire two AI models to agree before returning PASS. Recommended for high-stakes jobs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint true, but description adds details: auto-finish on approval, ledger verification, and returns on pass/fail including attempts_remaining. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is relatively short, front-loads purpose, and efficiently conveys behavior and returns. Minor bullet list of returns is clear.

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 5 parameters (2 required) and presence of output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and key parameter details. Could mention additional parameters, but schema handles those.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value for the 'work' parameter (XRPL tx hash details) but does not elaborate on other parameters like require_consensus or evidence_links.

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 the exact action: 'Submit proof of completed work against an existing escrow vault.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_escrow_vault and get_escrow_info.

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 context: payment releases automatically on approval, no EscrowFinish needed, and XRPL tx hashes are auto-verified. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but implies use cases (e.g., proof of NFT transfers).

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