Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SignCheck

by co.youraitools
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Is it safe to sign this?

check_signature
Read-onlyIdempotent

Call BEFORE your agent signs or sends anything from a wallet. Decodes a transaction, an EIP-712 typed-data request (Permit, Permit2, EIP-3009 USDC authorizations, Seaport orders), an EIP-7702 delegation or an x402 payment (402 terms + payload) into plain English and returns SAFE / CAUTION / DANGER with risk flags (unlimited approvals, setApprovalForAll, fake USDC domains, x402 overpay or wrong payTo, OFAC SDN counterparties). Free preview tier (offline). The paid x402 endpoint /v1/check adds reasons, on-chain facts (spender is a wallet or contract, token metadata) and an eth_call simulation.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_signature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
txNoTransaction to send: {"to":"0x…","data":"0x…","value":"0","from":"0x…"} (from enables simulation)
chainNobase (default), ethereum, base-sepolia or a chain id
typed_dataNoEIP-712 request {domain, types, primaryType, message} as passed to eth_signTypedData_v4
authorizationNoEIP-7702 authorization {address (delegate contract), chainId, nonce}
payment_payloadNox402 payment you are about to send: PAYMENT-SIGNATURE / X-PAYMENT (base64) or JSON
payment_requiredNox402 402 terms: the PAYMENT-REQUIRED header (base64) or JSON {accepts:[…]}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnly/openWorld/idempotent; the description adds the material facts an agent needs — that this preview tier is offline, so no on-chain facts or eth_call simulation are included, and that those plus human-readable reasons live behind the paid endpoint. It also enumerates the specific risk flags (unlimited approvals, setApprovalForAll, fake USDC domains, x402 overpay/wrong payTo, OFAC SDN) so the verdict semantics are predictable.

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 call-before-signing imperative, then a dense enumeration of supported formats and returns; no filler sentences. It is long and parenthesis-heavy, but each clause carries distinct information (input classes, verdicts, flags, tier limits).

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 zero-required-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description still explains the return shape (verdict plus named risk flags) and the capability ceiling of the free tier. The one omission — that one payload family must be supplied per call — is minor against an otherwise complete picture.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real mapping value by tying the typed_data parameter to concrete primary types (Permit, Permit2, EIP-3009 USDC, Seaport) and by naming the x402 pairing of 402 terms plus payload. It does not state the selection rule among the six optional parameters (that you pass exactly one payload family), which keeps it below a 5.

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 (decodes) plus a concrete verdict output (SAFE / CAUTION / DANGER) over explicitly enumerated input classes: transactions, EIP-712 typed data including Permit/Permit2/EIP-3009/Seaport, EIP-7702 delegations, and x402 payments. An agent knows exactly what it gets back and for which payload families, with no sibling ambiguity.

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 opening imperative 'Call BEFORE your agent signs or sends anything from a wallet' is a crisp usage trigger, and the last sentence routes heavier needs to the paid /v1/check endpoint with a concrete list of what extra it returns. It lacks any explicit when-not (e.g. personal_sign messages, read-only balance checks), so it stops just short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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

All SignCheck 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