@xrpl-utilities/mcp

xrpl_telemetry_dex_pair_volume

Get per-pair DEX volume on XRPL: 24h and 7d volume, fill counts, orderbook vs AMM split, and annualized run rate.

Instructions

Free. Per-pair DEX volume on XRPL: 24h and 7d volume, fill counts, orderbook vs AMM source split, and annualized run rate.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "xrpl_telemetry_dex_pair_volume"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pair`	No	Pair filter, e.g. 'XRP/RLUSD'. Omit for all.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.184Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions "Free" and lists output metrics, which adds some context, but it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior for omitted parameter values. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, and no safety profile is given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the key purpose and a list of provided metrics. Every word is informative, with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description lists key metrics but does not explain the full response structure or behavior when all pairs are returned. Given no annotations, the description is adequate but not exhaustive for a complete contextual picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers the single parameter 'pair' with 100% coverage, explaining the format (e.g., 'XRP/RLUSD') and that omitting it returns all pairs. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond using the word 'Per-pair', which aligns with the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: it retrieves per-pair DEX volume metrics on XRPL, listing specific data points (24h/7d volume, fill counts, orderbook vs AMM split, annualized run rate). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling telemetry tools like settlement or snapshot.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but there is no direct guidance on suitable use cases or comparisons to other telemetry tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server