Skip to main content
Glama

xrpl-referee

by io.github.eamwhite1

Get Wallet Verification Challenge

get_wallet_verification_challenge
Read-only

Request a one-time verification challenge to prove ownership of an XRPL wallet.

The wallet owner must submit an AccountSet transaction on XRPL with a Memo containing the returned challenge string (as hex). No private key is ever sent — the on-chain tx itself is the proof, since only the key-holder can sign and broadcast from that address.

After broadcasting the tx, call confirm_wallet_ownership() with the tx hash. Challenge expires in 30 minutes.

Returns: wallet, challenge, memo_hex, expires_at, instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wallet_addressYesThe XRPL wallet address (r...) whose ownership you want to prove.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description confirms it's a read-only request. Discloses expiration time (30 min) and that no private key is transmitted. 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?

Two concise paragraphs: first states purpose, second gives detailed usage instructions and return fields. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Complete for a verification step. Includes security context, expiration, follow-up function, and return fields. Output schema exists, so return details are sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter (wallet_address) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds minimal extra context (r... format), but schema already adequately describes it.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: requesting a one-time verification challenge to prove XRPL wallet ownership. Distinguishes from sibling tool confirm_wallet_ownership, which is the follow-up step.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step instructions: after getting challenge, submit AccountSet transaction with memo hex, then call confirm_wallet_ownership(). Mentions expiration and security note (no private key sent). Clear context and alternatives.

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