verify

verify_wallet_ownership

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: signature formats per chain, no fund movement, no key exposure, return fields, and linking wallet/session token ownership. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Concise, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value. No 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?

Despite missing output schema, description fully covers return values, prerequisites, and safety. All necessary context for a signature verification tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description compensates by explaining chain options (evm vs solana signatures), nonce origin, agent_id must match previous request, and signature format. All 5 parameters get meaningful context.

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?

Clearly states 'Step 2 of wallet verification: prove control by signing the challenge from step 1.' The verb 'prove control' and resource 'wallet ownership' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool by referencing step 1.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use (after challenge from request_verification_challenge), chain options, nonce source, agent_id requirement, and what happens on success. Also states what it does not do ('Does not move funds or expose keys').

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?