@xrpl-utilities/mcp

xrpl_vault_scan

Analyze per-issuer RWA vaults: supply, mint/burn flow, AMM exposure, and daily history. Accepts an r-address, issuer label, or currency code.

Instructions

Paid ($0.10 USD). Per-issuer RWA deep dive: supply, mint/burn flow, AMM exposure, and daily history. Accepts wallet address, issuer label, or currency code.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issuer": "<issuer>"
    },
    "name": "xrpl_vault_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issuer`	Yes	r-address, label (e.g. 'Ondo OUSG'), or currency code (e.g. 'RLUSD').
`payment_signature`	No	x402 payment header.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.184Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral context. It discloses the $0.10 cost, which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not state whether the scan is read-only, describe output size or limits, or mention any prerequisites. The term 'deep dive' hints at extensive data but lacks specifics.

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 only two sentences and manages to convey cost, purpose, and input flexibility. It is front-loaded with the cost warning and uses compact phrasing. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool without an output schema, the description lists key data categories but omits any information about the response format, date ranges, or pagination. Given the large set of sibling tools, the description does not clarify how this differs from related tools like xrpl_vault_daily_flow or xrpl_pulse_rwa_summary. This makes it insufficient for a fully informed selection.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters, with 100% coverage. The description's mention of accepting wallet address, issuer label, or currency code repeats the schema's issuer description without adding new meaning. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a per-issuer RWA deep dive and enumerates specific data points (supply, mint/burn, AMM exposure, daily history). It accepts issuer identifiers in multiple forms, which distinguishes it from sibling summary tools like xrpl_pulse_rwa_summary. However, it lacks a direct action verb, relying on the tool name 'scan' for the verb.

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 implies usage when a detailed per-issuer analysis is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The paid cost is a consideration but not a usage guideline. No alternatives are named.

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

Deploy Server