Skip to main content
Glama

xrpl-referee

by io.github.eamwhite1

Hire and Pay

hire_and_pay

One-call shortcut to register an escrow vault AND get the ready-to-sign transaction.

This combines create_escrow_vault() + prepare_escrow() into a single call. The agent only needs to sign the returned transaction and confirm it — no manual XRPL transaction construction required.

Typical flow:

  1. hire_and_pay() — register vault, get ready-to-sign EscrowCreate tx

  2. Sign transaction with your wallet and submit to XRPL

  3. confirm_escrow_transaction(escrow_id, tx_hash) — activate the vault

  4. Worker submits work, agent calls evaluate_escrow_work() to release payment

Returns: escrow_id, transaction (ready-to-sign), condition, cancel_after_human, next_step instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesDetailed description of what the worker must deliver. The AI referee evaluates against this — be precise.
fee_hashNo64-char hex hash of your $0.10 payment (XRP/RLUSD/USDC) to rmcSrkpZ2i2kuvtCPeTVetee9SixP4djR. Omit to use free tier (if eligible).
escrow_idYesUnique receipt code for this escrow, e.g. AT-7X9K-2MQ4. Must be unique.
amount_xrpYesAmount of XRP to lock in escrow as the bounty.
buyer_nameNoYour name or agent identifier.
buyer_addressYesYour XRPL wallet address (r...) — you are the buyer.
worker_addressYesXRPL address (r...) of the worker to hire directly. Get this from direct_hire() or award_job().
cancel_after_hrsNoHours until escrow auto-cancels if worker doesn't deliver. Default 168 = 7 days.

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?

With annotations already indicating side effects (readOnlyHint: false), the description adds context about the combined nature, the ready-to-sign transaction, and that no manual construction is needed. It clarifies the immediate output and next steps, which is useful beyond the annotation flags.

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 a clear purpose in the first sentence, a numbered flow, and a return list. It is moderately verbose but each section earns its place, making it efficient and scannable.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, an output schema, and many related tools, the description covers the essential process, ties into the wider workflow, and explains what the agent must do with the result. It does not over-explain but provides enough to act correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains each parameter, including uniqueness and how worker_address is obtained. The description adds flow context but does not meaningfully expand on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 first sentence clearly states it as a one-call shortcut to register an escrow vault and get a ready-to-sign transaction, combining two specific functions. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_escrow_vault and prepare_escrow.

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 a typical flow with steps, showing when this tool fits in the overall process. It mentions combining create_escrow_vault() and prepare_escrow(), implicitly indicating that separate alternatives exist, but does not explicitly list exclusion conditions.

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