Create an XRPL native escrow for agent-to-agent deals. No smart contract needed — XRPL has built-in escrow. Lock XRP, set conditions, auto-release on fulfillment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Hours until escrow can be finished | |
| deal_type | No | Type of deal | compliance_evidence |
| amount_xrp | No | Amount to escrow in XRP | |
| destination | No | Recipient XRPL address | rJffixdE2JGWGf12Rh9D9kjDgd6jVxVpzD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions locking XRP, setting conditions, and auto-release on fulfillment, which conveys the core mutating action. However, it does not detail side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or what happens on failure, leaving significant gaps for a state-changing operation.
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 compact, two sentences long, and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every sentence adds value, explaining the mechanism and the benefit ('no smart contract needed') without redundant details.
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?
For a create/mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a general overview but lacks crucial operational details such as the source account, return value, or failure behavior. It is adequate for understanding the high-level purpose but incomplete for safe invocation in complex scenarios.
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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the generic concepts of locking XRP and setting conditions, which do not map explicitly to any parameter.
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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('XRPL native escrow'). It also provides context ('agent-to-agent deals') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrpl_escrow_check and xrpl_escrow_monitor by focusing on creation.
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 implies usage for creating escrows in agent-to-agent deals, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no comparison to other escrow-related tools, though 'No smart contract needed' hints at a use case advantage.
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.