AgentTrust XRPL

Rate Counterparty

rate_wallet

Leave a 1–5 star peer rating for a counterparty after a completed escrow.

Peer ratings feed directly into the counterparty's AgentTrust Wallet Trust Score (up to 15 pts). One rating per escrow per rater. Ratings are permanent and public.

Proof required: provide rater_signature + rater_public_key + signature_ts (signed locally with xrpl.core.keypairs.sign), or use an enterprise x-api-key linked to rater_address.

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": {
      "wallet_address": "<wallet_address>",
      "escrow_id": "<escrow_id>",
      "rating": "<rating>",
      "rater_address": "<rater_address>",
      "rater_role": "<rater_role>"
    },
    "name": "rate_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rating`	Yes	Star rating from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).
`comment`	No	Optional short comment about the counterparty (max 280 chars).
`escrow_id`	Yes	The escrow ID for the completed transaction. One rating allowed per escrow per rater.
`rater_role`	Yes	Your role in the escrow: 'buyer' or 'worker'.
`signature_ts`	No	Unix timestamp used when signing (must be within 5 min of now).
`rater_address`	Yes	Your XRPL wallet address (r...) — the rater.
`wallet_address`	Yes	The XRPL wallet address (r...) of the counterparty you are rating.
`rater_signature`	No	Hex signature over 'agenttrust-rate:{escrow_id}:{rated}:{rating}:{ts}' from rater_address private key.
`rater_public_key`	No	Hex public key whose derived address == rater_address.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 25, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / comment / description

Previous value: -"Optional short comment about the counterparty."New value: +"Optional short comment about the counterparty (max 280 chars)."

addedInput schema / properties / rater_public_key

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Hex public key whose derived address == rater_address."
+}

addedInput schema / properties / rater_signature

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Hex signature over 'agenttrust-rate:{escrow_id}:{rated}:{rating}:{ts}' from rater_address private key."
+}

addedInput schema / properties / signature_ts

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Unix timestamp used when signing (must be within 5 min of now).",
+  "title": "Signature Timestamp"
+}

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 7, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / escrow_id / title
```
Added value: +"Escrow ID"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / rater_address / title
```
Added value: +"Your Wallet Address"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / rater_role / title
```
Added value: +"Your Role"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / rating / title
```
Added value: +"Rating (1–5)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / wallet_address / title
```
Added value: +"Wallet to Rate"
```
AddedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that ratings are permanent and public, that duplicates are rejected per escrow per rater (consistent with idempotentHint=false), the exact scoring impact (up to 15 pts), and the signing/timestamp proof requirements. That is the kind of consequence an agent needs before committing to a non-reversible write.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then consequences, then proof mechanics in three tight paragraphs. No filler sentences; every clause carries actionable information.

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 9-parameter mutation with an output schema available, this covers effect, constraints, and auth sufficiently. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior and what the caller gets back on a rejected or duplicate rating, though the output schema reduces that burden.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by grouping the three proof parameters and naming the signing library (xrpl.core.keypairs.sign) plus the alternative x-api-key path, which is absent from the schema. It adds little on the plain fields (rating, escrow_id, rater_role) because the schema handles those.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Leave a 1–5 star peer rating for a counterparty after a completed escrow.' It also clarifies its downstream effect (feeds into the Trust Score), implicitly distinguishing it from the read-only get_wallet_trust_score sibling, but no sibling or alternative is named explicitly.

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?

Gives the required precondition ('after a completed escrow'), a hard constraint ('one rating per escrow per rater'), and the two acceptable auth paths (local signature vs. enterprise x-api-key). It never states when not to use it or what to do instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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.