XRPL cross-currency path finding: discover optimal payment routes using DEX + AMM liquidity. Atomic cross-currency settlement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | Amount to deliver | |
| issuer | No | Currency issuer (if not XRP) | |
| currency | No | Destination currency (default: USD) | |
| source_account | Yes | Sender XRPL address | |
| destination_account | Yes | Receiver XRPL address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Atomic cross-currency settlement,' which is ambiguous about whether the tool executes settlements or merely finds routes. It fails to disclose side effects, read-only status, or return behavior, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's impact.
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 very concise, with two sentences that are to the point. No filler words, but the second sentence adds marginal value and some ambiguity, preventing a perfect score.
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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., a list of paths), limitations, or how the inputs relate to the output. The tool's complexity (cross-currency path finding) demands more context than provided.
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 is 100%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, so the 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 states the tool's purpose: 'XRPL cross-currency path finding: discover optimal payment routes using DEX + AMM liquidity.' This is a specific verb+resource (discover routes) and distinguishes it from siblings like order book or payment intel 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?
The description implies the tool is used for finding cross-currency payment routes when DEX and AMM liquidity are involved. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or any exclusions, which would make it a 5.
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.