XRPL compliance check: freeze status, clawback capability, auth requirements, transfer restrictions. Native MiCA-relevant controls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | XRPL account to check compliance flags |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only check but never explicitly states that it does not modify state, nor does it disclose any side effects, input prerequisites, or error behavior. The list of checks provides some context, but important behavioral traits are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It lists the key checks efficiently, though it is somewhat telegraphic and could benefit from an explicit verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and potential limitations. It only lists the topics of the check without describing the result format (e.g., booleans, counts) or error cases, leaving the agent to guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'account', is fully described in the schema with 'XRPL account to check compliance flags,' achieving 100% schema coverage. Under the baseline rule for high coverage, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics; it adds the specific compliance aspects but those are not parameter-specific.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies this as an XRPL compliance check and enumerates specific dimensions (freeze status, clawback capability, auth requirements, transfer restrictions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrpl_token_check or xrpl_account_intel. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'checks' and doesn't specify the scope of the output, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other XRPL tools, and there are many siblings with overlapping concerns. The only hint is 'Native MiCA-relevant controls,' which implies a compliance use case, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the escrow check/monitor pair and the many RLUSD tools covering supply, integrity, holders, and compliance. Account-related tools like account_intel, gateway_balances, and token_check also share boundaries. An agent would need careful reading to choose correctly.
All tools share the xrpl_ prefix and use snake_case consistently. However, the second part mixes nouns and verbs (e.g., overview, iso20022, path_find, quantum_join), so the pattern is not strictly verb_noun. This is still readable and predictable.
31 tools is on the heavy side for an oracle server, especially with 9 RLUSD-specific tools that could be consolidated. The breadth of XRPL topics is large, but the count feels inflated beyond what an agent needs.
The tool set covers the major XRPL domains: accounts, DEX, AMM, NFTs, escrow, payments, compliance, and RLUSD. There are no glaring dead ends for an oracle use case. Some areas like transaction history are missing, but they fall outside the intelligence scope.