Skip to main content
Glama

verify_proof

Look up one identifier (chunk_id, proof_id, match_id, transfer id, or a BSV txid) in ENYAL's public verify lookup — no auth. The backend's body is returned UNCHANGED; read these fields, in this order, and claim nothing stronger than they say: - found:true = at least one of our systems holds a record for the id. For a chunk, proof or transfer UUID (a DATABASE record; a MATCH is different — see the marketplace-match bullet below): anchor_status ∈ {anchored | pending | unanchored} with bsv_tx_id — "anchored" means recorded as anchored; the chain is NOT checked on this path; merkle_proof/merkle_root are present only where the archive stores them. To check the chain, look up the returned bsv_tx_id. - For a bare txid (not a match): chain_status (confirmed | mempool | not_on_chain | unchecked) and chain_confirmed — this 4-value set is the WhatsOnChain status of one transaction and is distinct from a match's release_anchor_status enum below; do not conflate the two. Only chain_confirmed:true is a verified anchor. mempool can still be evicted. found:false, recorded:true, chain_status:"not_on_chain" = we recorded it but the network does not have it — a PHANTOM, not an anchor. Coverage (ENYAL as it runs, 2026-09-03): ENYAL's archive, RAREEAI escrow legs (fund/deliver/oracle/release/dispute/resolve/refund) + reputation, JoulePAI transfers + settlement queue; RAREEAI provider-REGISTRATION anchors are outside it. - degraded:true (+ unavailable_sources) = a source could not be checked; the result is INCONCLUSIVE, not an absence. Only found:false, degraded:false is a clean not-found. - For a RAREEAI marketplace match the body carries TWO INDEPENDENT on-chain claims — read both, collapse neither: ledger_payout_anchor (the joule movement that settled the trade — provider payout or buyer refund — with its own txid/block_height/status; this is the anchor a customer checks today, and it nests a batched settlement_proof leaf) and escrow_contract_release_anchor (the sCrypt escrow contract's terminal leg — its confirmed transaction id is settlement_tx, surfaced flat as release_anchor_status). release_anchor_status is an ENUM in the escrow lane's own vocabulary — read the value AND its note, never reduce it to anchored/not-anchored: confirmed | pending | unreachable | unanchored_open | closed_unanchored | fund_never_anchored | pre_contract | test_resolved | in_progress | ledger_lane. Only confirmed is a chain-confirmed contract release; pending/unreachable mean a release txid EXISTS but the chain has not confirmed it yet (pending) or WhatsOnChain could not be reached (unreachable) — retry, do not read them as unanchored. Every OTHER value explains why there is no contract txid at all — a ledger-lane, closed-unanchored, fund-never-anchored, pre-contract, test-resolved or in-progress trade is settled by the joule movement in ledger_payout_anchor, NOT by a missing anchor. Bridge-Ledger (contribution/fee) events are not in THIS ENYAL lookup, but they ARE anchored — batched into the hourly transparency attestation (bridge_root; five attestations per OP_RETURN transaction, roughly every five hours), and checkable with the bridge_proof tool (newest rows read anchoring "pending" until their batch is broadcast, then carry the batch txid). Graph edges are not verifiable here. This tool never decides — it relays ENYAL's verdict fields; a proof-ref it does not return does not exist as far as this lookup can see.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides an extensive, detailed picture of the tool's behavior with no annotations to rely on. It explains the exact semantics of each status field, warns about inconclusive/degraded results, distinguishes phantom entries, and correctly notes the path is read-only and relays ENYAL's verdicts. This greatly exceeds typical disclosure.

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 long but necessary, given the absence of annotations and output schema. It front-loads the purpose and then builds logically through field semantics, coverage, caveats, and comparisons to sibling tools. The bullets and clear separation of warning statements make the structure navigable despite its depth.

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?

With no output schema, the tool description has to explain the response shape. It does so extensively across all known statuses, enum values, and failure modes. It also includes coverage dates, fallback tool guidance, and explicit statement that missing proof-refs mean non-existence. Nothing necessary for correct use is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema only declares 'identifier' as a string with no description coverage. The tool description provides the complete set of meaningful identifier forms (chunk_id, proof_id, match_id, transfer id, BSV txid) and explains how the identifier interacts with the returned fields, adding essential meaning beyond 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 that the tool looks up one identifier in ENYAL's public verify lookup and lists the accepted identifier types. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that Bridge-Ledger events are routed to bridge_proof and that graph edges are not verifiable here.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit usage scope: lookup for listed identifier types, and explicitly states when not to use this tool (for bridge events, which should go to bridge_proof; graph edges are excluded). It also mentions that no auth is needed, aiding selection and call strategy.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources