AgentTrust XRPL

Prepare Challenge Escrow

prepare_challenge_escrow

Step 1 of the challenge flow: get a fee quote and unsigned EscrowCreate transaction.

The challenge fee (~$1.00 USD in XRP) is held as a crypto-condition escrow to the worker address. On PASS_UPHELD the fee releases to the worker; on PASS_OVERTURNED or REVIEW_INCONCLUSIVE the fee is REFUNDABLE via EscrowCancel.

Returns: quote_id, fee_drops, fee_xrp, condition, destination (worker), unsigned_tx (sign with your wallet and submit), expires_at (quote TTL).

After submitting the EscrowCreate, call challenge_escrow_verdict with the resulting tx hash and this quote_id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "escrow_id": "<escrow_id>",
      "challenger_address": "<challenger_address>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_challenge_escrow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`escrow_id`	Yes	The receipt code for the escrow whose PASS verdict you want to dispute.
`challenger_address`	Yes	Your XRPL wallet address (r...) that will sign the fee EscrowCreate.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the ~$1.00 fee, the escrow outcome matrix (PASS_UPHELD releases to worker; PASS_OVERTURNED/REVIEW_INCONCLUSIVE refundable via EscrowCancel), the quote TTL via expires_at, and crucially that the tool returns an unsigned transaction the caller must sign and submit — which reconciles destructiveHint=false with a funds-moving flow. This is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the step label and purpose, then economics, then next action — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The explicit "Returns:" enumeration is somewhat redundant given a full output schema exists, costing a little tightness.

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?

For a two-parameter step-1 tool with a rich output schema and openWorld annotations, the description supplies everything the agent needs: prerequisites, fee semantics, settlement outcomes, TTL, signing responsibility, and the handoff to the next tool. No material gap remains.

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%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a useful gloss on the return field destination (the worker address) but says nothing about escrow_id or challenger_address beyond what the schema states.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("get a fee quote and unsigned EscrowCreate transaction") and anchors it as "Step 1 of the challenge flow," which separates it from prepare_escrow and challenge_escrow_verdict. The economics (fee held as crypto-condition escrow to the worker) make the operation's shape unambiguous.

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?

Explicit sequencing: call this first, then submit the signed transaction, then call challenge_escrow_verdict with the tx hash and quote_id. The triggering condition (disputing a PASS verdict) is carried by the schema description of escrow_id rather than the tool description itself, and no explicit "don't use this for X" exclusion is given.

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

All AgentTrust XRPL tools Inspect

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.