Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@xrpl-utilities/mcp

@xrpl-utilities/mcp

by XRPL-Utilities
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

xrpl_vault_daily_flow

Retrieve daily cross-issuer RWA flow data showing mint/burn event counts and USD-pegged net inflow per day.

Instructions

Free. Cross-issuer daily RWA flow series: mint/burn event counts per day and USD-pegged net inflow aggregate. Complements the paid per-issuer scan.

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_vault_daily_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoTrailing days.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.184

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pricing (free), scope (cross-issuer), and the nature of the data (daily series, mint/burn counts, net inflow). It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only data retrieval tool, this is sufficient context.

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?

Two concise sentences, zero wasted words. The leading 'Free.' is efficient and informative. Every phrase earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return content (mint/burn counts and net inflow) and positions the tool within the sibling set. It could add a bit more about the output format, but it's adequate.

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 100% of the parameter documentation ('days' with description 'Trailing days.'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics about the 'days' parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool's function: providing a 'cross-issuer daily RWA flow series' with specific metrics (mint/burn event counts per day and USD-pegged net inflow aggregate). It also distinguishes itself from a paid per-issuer scan, so it's unique among siblings.

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?

It states the complementary relationship to the paid per-issuer scan, giving clear context for when to use this free cross-issuer tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool or list exclusions for other sibling tools, so a small gap remains.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools