Verifi

verify_claim

Ask a real human to verify a claim.

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`claim`	Yes
`intent`	Yes
`agent_id`	Yes
`callback_url`	No
`payment_signature`	No

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral transparency. It discloses the asynchronous nature (returns 'processing' with verify_id), the callback/polling mechanism, the x402 payment requirement, the need to retain verify_id for recovery, and the single-active-verification constraint. These are key behavioral traits beyond a mere 'create' action.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by compact parameter definitions and workflow steps. It is dense but every sentence earns its place, covering all necessary aspects without redundancy. The line breaks improve readability.

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?

For a complex async, payment-backed tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: initiation, return value (verify_id, status), callback/polling options, recovery, and a post-verification action (unlock_verify). It also specifies a concurrency limit, making it complete for an agent to select and use correctly.

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 fully compensates. It explains each parameter's meaning and constraints: intent (max 2000 chars), claim (max 4000 chars), agent_id (wallet address format), callback_url (HTTPS endpoint for verify.ready/failed), and payment_signature (optional manual input, standard auto-sent). This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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?

The description opens with 'Ask a real human to verify a claim,' which clearly states the tool's purpose as initiating human verification. It distinguishes this creation action from sibling tools like get_verify (polling) and unlock_verify (post-verification) by describing the return of a verify_id and the subsequent workflow.

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 workflow guidance: 'Prefer callback_url, or poll get_verify at the returned interval until status is "ready" or "failed". If ready, call unlock_verify.' It also explains the constraint 'Only one active verify per agent_id at a time' and mentions the alternative to callback_url, making usage context clear.

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

All Verifi 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 has a distinct role: verifi_info provides service details, verify_claim submits a claim, get_verify polls status, and unlock_verify retrieves the human result. There is no overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use snake_case and follow a clear verb_noun pattern (verify_claim, get_verify, unlock_verify) with verifi_info as a consistent service-info exception. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

Four tools is a reasonable size for a focused verification service. The set covers the core workflow without unnecessary bloat, though slightly on the lean side.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: submit a claim, poll for status, retrieve the result, and get service info. Minor gaps like explicit cancellation or history listing exist but are not critical for the primary workflow.

Resources

Need Help?