Skip to main content
Glama

xrpl-referee

by io.github.eamwhite1

Look Up NFT Issuer

lookup_nft_issuer
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up an organisation in the AgentTrust XRPL NFT Issuer Registry.

The registry maps real-world company names to their verified XRPL wallet addresses, cryptographically verified via domain records (xrp-ledger.toml). Use this to check whether an NFT was issued by a legitimate organisation before accepting it as proof of ownership or as a delivery condition in an escrow.

Returns: name, xrpl_wallet, verified status, domain, and a register_url if not found.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesCompany name (e.g. 'Ripple') or XRPL wallet address to look up in the issuer registry.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the cryptographic verification via domain records and the return of a register_url when not found, which helps the agent understand the tool's reliability and edge cases without contradiction.

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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: definition, context/use case, and return values. No word is wasted, and the information is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The description covers the registry purpose, verification method, usage scenario, and return fields, which is sufficient for a simple lookup tool. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_nft_issuer_by_wallet, which could be confusing for an agent choosing between them.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including an example. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool looks up an organisation in the AgentTrust XRPL NFT Issuer Registry, mapping company names to verified wallet addresses. It provides a specific use case (checking NFT issuer legitimacy) and lists return fields, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from generic lookup tools.

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 explicitly says to use this tool before accepting an NFT as proof of ownership or in escrow, giving a concrete scenario. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., get_nft_issuer_by_wallet for wallet-only lookups), which limits full guidance.

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