Rokha

Start wallet registration / login

auth_wallet_challenge

Step 1 of registering (or logging in) a user with a wallet keypair — no browser needed. Returns a challenge message to sign with the wallet's private key. Works for Solana (base58 Ed25519 address) and EVM (0x address). Follow with auth_wallet_verify. New wallets are auto-registered on first verify as a free account: 10 questions a day with Rokha, free listing, and 5 runs a day (model steps on your own model key). Past them: a run pack, 100 runs for $1 (product_checkout), or the Lab, $29.99 a month (subscribe) — full access to everything.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	optional chain override (solana \| evm) — auto-detected from the address
`wallet_type`	No	defaults by address shape: 0x → metamask, else phantom
`wallet_address`	Yes	the wallet's public address (base58 Solana or 0x EVM)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the genuinely useful behavior that it returns a signable challenge rather than a session, and that a new wallet is auto-registered on first verify as a free account. The pricing/limits paragraph is informative but reads as upsell rather than behavior an agent needs before invoking. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first two sentences are tight and front-loaded with the essential purpose and the follow-up call. The final third drifts into free-tier quotas, run-pack pricing, and subscription pricing that belong to product_checkout/subscribe rather than to a challenge-generation call.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and full parameter coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing. The flow, supported chains, and next step are all stated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents chain auto-detection and the wallet_type defaulting rule; the description only restates the address shapes (base58 Ed25519, 0x). Baseline 3 applies since the description adds little beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Step 1 of registering (or logging in) a user with a wallet keypair") and names the exact artifact produced ("a challenge message to sign with the wallet's private key"). It explicitly routes to the sibling auth_wallet_verify, so an agent can distinguish it from the other auth tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule ("Follow with auth_wallet_verify") and names the alternative flow this belongs to (register vs. login), plus the precondition that no browser is needed. Supported address formats are spelled out (base58 Solana / 0x EVM), which is the main condition that selects the correct call.

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

All Rokha tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.