verify

request_verification_challenge

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?

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the challenge is single-use, expires (~10 min), and returns specific fields. It does not mention authentication requirements but covers essential behavioral traits.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, then parameters, then usage flow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains input meaning, return value structure, workflow, and expiration behavior. No significant gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaning to chain and agent_id beyond the schema (chain values, agent_id purpose). Address is implied but not explicitly defined; schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.

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 the tool's purpose: 'get a fresh challenge for the user to sign'. It identifies itself as 'Step 1 of wallet verification' and distinguishes from the sibling tool verify_wallet_ownership by outlining the workflow.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for use: it is the first step, requires a chain and agent_id, and explains the subsequent call to verify_wallet_ownership. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is adequate.

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

All verify 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

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one requests a challenge, the other verifies a signed challenge. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (request_verification_challenge and verify_wallet_ownership) using underscores, which is clear and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Two tools exactly match the two-step verification workflow. The server is tightly scoped and every tool is necessary.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover the essential verification flow end-to-end. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to check verification status without re-verifying, but the verify tool returns session information, mitigating the issue.

Resources

Need Help?