XRPL on-chain object scanner: explore DIDs, AMMs, MPTs, escrows, offers, checks, NFTs as native ledger objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Object type filter: account, amm, check, did, escrow, nft_offer, offer, payment_channel, mpt_issuance |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'scanner' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state safety, default behavior, return format, pagination, or any limitations. This leaves significant ambiguity.
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. It starts with 'XRPL on-chain object scanner' and immediately enumerates object types. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 return values and default behavior. It does not address what happens when no 'type' is supplied, what the response structure looks like, or whether results are limited. The description is too sparse for a tool that appears to be a general-purpose ledger scanner.
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 schema fully documents the 'type' parameter with its accepted values, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a few synonyms ('MPTs') and groups objects, but does not explain the meaning of omitting the parameter or provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 the tool as an XRPL on-chain object scanner, listing specific object types (DIDs, AMMs, MPTs, escrows, offers, checks, NFTs) and emphasizing 'native ledger objects.' This distinguishes it as a raw object accessor, though it does not explicitly contrast it with specialized sibling tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xrpl_amm_pools or xrpl_nft_intel. The description merely states what the tool does, without context, exclusions, or recommended scenarios.
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.