Tachyo

verify__request_verification_challenge

[verify] Step 1 of wallet verification: get a fresh challenge for the user to sign.

chain: "evm" or "solana". Pass agent_id (your marketplace identity) so the proof is bound to you. Present challenge to the user, have their wallet sign it (EVM personal_sign / Solana signMessage), then call verify_wallet_ownership with the returned nonce + signature. The challenge is single-use and expires (~10 min). Returns {challenge, nonce, expires_at}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`chain`	No	evm
`address`	Yes
`agent_id`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the challenge is single-use and expires in ~10 minutes, and specifies the return format. However, it does not mention failure modes, authentication requirements, or side effects. Still, it provides enough behavioral context for safe usage.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter details, workflow, and return value. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return format: {challenge, nonce, expires_at}. It covers the entire process from initiation to next step. Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no nested objects), the description is complete for effective use.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'chain' (evm/solana) and 'agent_id' (binds proof to identity), but fails to describe the required 'address' parameter. Two of three parameters are clarified, leaving a notable gap for the essential address field.

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 it is 'Step 1 of wallet verification' and 'get a fresh challenge', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'verify__verify_wallet_ownership' by being the first step, making its purpose very clear.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: as the first step before calling 'verify_wallet_ownership'. It details the workflow: present challenge, have user sign, then call verify with nonce+signature. It also mentions chain options and agent_id usage, leaving no ambiguity.

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

All Tachyo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of market analysis or token safety, with clear descriptions that avoid overlap. Tools like find_longs and find_shorts are opposites, and other get_* tools each address unique metrics (e.g., buzz, attention shifts, smart money flow). No two tools have ambiguous boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools are prefixed by category (marketsummary__, tokensafety__, verify__), and most use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_liquidity, find_longs). However, there is some variation: 'ask_market', 'track_narrative', and longer names like 'attention_vs_price_divergence' break the pure 'get_' pattern. Overall, the naming is logical and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 24 tools, the server covers a wide range of crypto market analysis, from general summaries to specific signals (e.g., conviction gap, smart money flow) and token safety. The count is well-scoped for the domain; each tool serves a clear purpose without being excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool set is comprehensive for a market analysis server: it includes natural language querying, trend detection, sentiment, liquidity, whale activity, safety checks, and wallet verification for premium access. Missing trading actions are outside the stated purpose, so no gaps are apparent.

Resources

Need Help?