XRPL gateway/issuer analysis: total obligations, hot wallet balances, compliance capabilities (freeze, clawback, require auth).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | Gateway/issuer XRPL address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states what the tool analyzes (obligations, hot wallet balances, compliance) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, data refresh characteristics, or any limits. The term 'analysis' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicit.
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 sentence that leads with the tool's purpose and lists the key analysis categories. There is no redundant wording or irrelevant information. It earns its place efficiently.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context by listing the major analysis areas (obligations, hot wallet balances, compliance). It lacks details on return format or interpretation, but for a simple analysis tool, it is nearly complete.
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?
Schema coverage for parameters is 100% (the 'account' field is described). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 specifies the tool's function: XRPL gateway/issuer analysis. It enumerates key outputs (total obligations, hot wallet balances, compliance capabilities), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like xrpl_account_intel (general intel) and xrpl_compliance_check (compliance only). The verb 'analysis' is general but the scope is precise.
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: when you need gateway/issuer analysis, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., xrpl_account_intel or xrpl_compliance_check) or any exclusions. No when-not guidance is provided.
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.