Skip to main content
Glama

xrpl-referee

by io.github.eamwhite1

Prepare Escrow Transaction

prepare_escrow
Idempotent

Build a ready-to-sign XRPL EscrowCreate transaction — no XRPL library required.

Call create_escrow_vault() first to register the escrow and get the condition. Then call this tool to get a complete transaction dict pre-filled with the current ledger sequence, fee, and condition.

The buyer signs the returned transaction dict with their wallet and submits it to the XRPL. Then call confirm_escrow_transaction() with the tx hash.

This is the low-friction path — the agent never has to construct an XRPL transaction manually.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
currencyNoCurrency to lock. "XRP" or "RLUSD".XRP
escrow_idYesThe receipt code from create_escrow_vault().
amount_xrpNoAmount of XRP to lock. Required for XRP escrow.
buyer_addressYesXRPL address (r...) of the buyer who will sign the EscrowCreate.
worker_addressYesXRPL address (r...) of the worker who will receive payment on approval.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states that the tool pre-fills the transaction with 'the current ledger sequence,' implying the output depends on time of call. This contradicts the annotation's idempotentHint: true, which claims the tool produces the same output for the same input. The description does not add behavioral context beyond the contradiction.

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 roughly 150 words, well-structured with a main sentence, numbered steps, and a bullet list of return values. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy ('no XRPL library required' and 'never has to construct') could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, workflow dependency, output schema exists), the description covers the full usage lifecycle: prerequisites, tool output, post-invocations. It explains what the returned transaction dict contains and lists all return fields. No critical gaps remain for an agent to understand invocation and outcome.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new semantic details about the parameters, only reiterates the escrow_id's purpose ('receipt code from create_escrow_vault()'). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the load.

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's purpose: 'Build a ready-to-sign XRPL EscrowCreate transaction — no XRPL library required.' It names the specific operation (prepare_escrow) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_escrow_vault and confirm_escrow_transaction by outlining the workflow order.

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?

The description provides explicit step-by-step usage instructions: call create_escrow_vault() first, then this tool, then buyer signs and submits, then confirm_escrow_transaction(). It names the required predecessor and successor tools, giving clear context for when to invoke this tool.

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