Skip to main content
Glama

xrpl-referee

by io.github.eamwhite1

Verify Wallet Domain

verify_wallet_domain
Idempotent

Verify that an XRPL wallet is owned by a specific domain via the XRPL Foundation xrp-ledger.toml standard.

The domain must publish an xrp-ledger.toml file at /.well-known/xrp-ledger.toml listing the wallet address under [ACCOUNTS]. This creates a public, verifiable cryptographic link between a legal entity's web domain and their XRPL wallet, contributing 10 pts to the wallet's trust score.

Returns: verified (bool), domain, wallet, and the toml source checked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain you claim to own, e.g. 'example.com'. Must have an xrp-ledger.toml listing this wallet.
wallet_addressYesThe XRPL wallet address (r...) to verify domain ownership for.

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 provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds important behavioral info: it contributes 10 points to the trust score and returns detailed verification results. However, it does not clarify whether the trust score increase happens every call or only once, creating slight ambiguity with the idempotency hint.

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 efficiently structured: a clear first paragraph stating purpose and method, followed by a second paragraph detailing the mechanism and return values. No redundant sentences, 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 purpose, mechanism, return values, and side effect. It does not mention error handling or what happens when the domain lacks the toml file, but given the output schema likely handles errors, this is a minor gap. Overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100% with good descriptions, and the description adds value by clarifying that the domain must have an xrp-ledger.toml file listing the wallet. This constraint is not in the schema, helping the agent understand the prerequisite. Baseline 3 is elevated due to this extra context.

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: verifying XRPL wallet ownership of a specific domain via the xrp-ledger.toml standard. It specifies the verb 'verify', the resources (wallet and domain), and the method. The unique side effect of adding 10 trust score points distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'verify_nft_ownership' or 'confirm_wallet_ownership'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the mechanism (domain must have xrp-ledger.toml) and what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'confirm_wallet_ownership' or 'verify_nft_ownership'. The usage context is implied by the specific standard, but lack of explicit guidance lowers the score.

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