@xrpl-utilities/mcp

xrpl_telemetry_get_quote

Start an async invoice flow to obtain an XRPL telemetry quote. Returns invoice_id, payTo address, deepLink, QR, and expiry for payment.

Instructions

Paid flow step 1 ($0.10 USD total). Start async invoice flow: returns invoice_id, payTo address, deepLink, QR, and expiry. Pay via XRPL Payment, then poll get_status, then call get_results.

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_get_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.184Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool is paid ($0.10 USD total), asynchronous (returns invoice info rather than results), and requires a subsequent payment step. It does not elaborate on failure modes or idempotency, but covers the essential behavior well.

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 three crisp sentences, front-loaded with 'Paid flow step 1'. Each sentence adds distinct value: cost, what it returns, and the subsequent workflow. No fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return fields, the payment requirement, and the exact sequence of follow-up calls, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly in the broader paid flow.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema is completely empty (0 parameters, 100% schema coverage), so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on the return values instead, which is the relevant semantic information for this tool.

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 starts an async invoice flow as step 1 of a paid flow, and specifies the exact return fields (invoice_id, payTo, deepLink, QR, expiry). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly positioning itself relative to get_status and get_results.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear workflow context: use this first in a paid async flow, then pay via XRPL, then poll get_status, then call get_results. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the sequential instructions serve as strong usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server