verify
Server Details
Cryptographic proof of wallet ownership in two steps, with no keys and no custody.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Both tools have distinct and complementary roles: one requests a challenge, the other verifies the signed challenge. No overlap in functionality.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'request_verification_challenge' and 'verify_wallet_ownership'.
Two tools are appropriate for the narrow domain of wallet verification, covering the complete two-step flow without unnecessary additions.
The tool set provides a complete lifecycle for wallet verification: challenge generation and signature verification, with no missing steps for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
2 toolsrequest_verification_challengeAInspect
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}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | evm | |
| address | Yes | ||
| agent_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the challenge is single-use, expires in ~10 minutes, and returns specific fields {challenge, nonce, expires_at}. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fully covers the tool's behavior, flow, and output, despite no output schema. It is complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds context for 'chain' (evm or solana) and 'agent_id' (marketplace identity). Address is required but implied as the user's wallet. Some improvement could clarify address parameter explicitly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's role as 'Step 1 of wallet verification' and specifies the action 'get a fresh challenge'. It identifies the resource (challenge) and distinguishes from sibling tool 'verify_wallet_ownership' by indicating this is the first step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use this tool (as the first step of wallet verification), how to use it (pass chain, agent_id), and what to do with the result (have wallet sign, then call verify_wallet_ownership). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_wallet_ownershipAInspect
Step 2 of wallet verification: prove control by signing the challenge from step 1.
chain: "evm" (secp256k1, 0x-hex signature) or "solana" (ed25519, base58/base64/hex). `nonce` is
from request_verification_challenge; the signature must be over that exact challenge text. Pass the
same agent_id you requested the challenge with — on success the wallet is linked to you and you get a
session_token to pass to Tachyo's other agents (e.g. check_token_safety) to unlock connected/premium
tiers. Returns {verified, address, chain, linked, session_token?, session_expires?}. Does not move
funds or expose keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | evm | |
| nonce | Yes | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| agent_id | No | ||
| signature | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool does not move funds or expose keys, and outlines return fields. Lacks details on idempotency or error states, but sufficient for a verification step.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is fairly concise, packing necessary details into a few sentences. Could be slightly more structured but avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description covers purpose, usage context, return values, safety assurances, and parameter semantics comprehensively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It fully explains chain (with signature format details), nonce (from step 1), address, agent_id (must match), and signature (over exact challenge). Adds meaning beyond schema defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'verify' and resource 'wallet ownership', positioned as step 2 of a process, and distinguished from sibling 'request_verification_challenge'. The description specifies the action of proving control via signing a challenge.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states it is step 2, implying usage after obtaining a challenge from the sibling tool. Provides context on passing agent_id and using session_token for other agents, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!