Skip to main content
Glama

Verifi

by cloud.verifi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

verify_claim

Ask a real human to verify, decide on, or improve something before your agent acts.

Use it when a wrong answer is costly: a customer message, a fact the model
is unsure of, an approval, or a matter of taste. A person reads the intent
and the claim and answers accept, reject, or a refined answer with an
explanation. This call is gate 1: it costs 0.10 EUR (paid on Base
via x402) and returns a payment requirement first if unpaid; reading that
requirement is free and shows every later price.

intent: what your agent is trying to do (max 2000 chars).
claim: the claim a human should verify (max 4000 chars).
agent_id: your wallet address (0x + 40 hex). Signs the x402 payments.
callback_url: optional HTTPS endpoint for verify.ready or verify.failed.
Use it to avoid an active polling loop; retain verify_id for recovery.
payment_signature: optional manual compatibility input. Standard x402-aware
MCP clients send the signed payment through request metadata automatically.
Returns status "processing" with a verify_id. Prefer callback_url, or poll
get_verify at the returned interval until status is "ready" or "failed".
If ready, call unlock_verify. Only one active verify per agent_id at a time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYes
intentYes
agent_idYes
callback_urlNo
payment_signatureNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: cost (0.10 EUR on Base via x402), the two-phase payment flow (payment requirement returned first if unpaid, reading it free, showing future prices), the processing lifecycle, and a concurrency limit ('only one active verify per agent_id at a time'). It also discloses callback event names (verify.ready / verify.failed).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action and the cost/costly-error trigger, then parameter-by-parameter detail; nearly every sentence earns its place given the payment and lifecycle complexity. It is somewhat sprawling for a five-parameter tool, but the density of useful content justifies most of the length.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by describing the return value ('status "processing" with a verify_id'), the terminal states (ready/failed), and the required follow-up call (unlock_verify). An agent has everything needed to invoke it, pay, and complete the flow.

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%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters and it does: intent (max 2000 chars), claim (max 4000 chars), agent_id (0x + 40 hex wallet that signs x402 payments), callback_url (optional HTTPS endpoint, with its effect of avoiding polling and need to retain verify_id), and payment_signature (optional manual compat input, auto-sent by x402-aware clients). That is meaning well beyond the bare typeless schema.

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+resource combo ('Ask a real human to verify, decide on, or improve something') with the explicit goal of gating agent action before it proceeds. It also names its siblings in context (poll get_verify, then call unlock_verify), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening another 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?

Explicit when-to-use criteria are given ('when a wrong answer is costly: a customer message, a fact the model is unsure of, an approval, or a matter of taste'). It also routes between alternatives: prefer callback_url over active polling, otherwise poll get_verify at the returned interval, then call unlock_verify. Exclusions and sequencing are both covered.

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

All Verifi toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources