api

Notarize Bundle On-Chain

bundle.notarize

Idempotent

Notarize an evidence bundle on-chain by writing its manifest SHA-256 to the blockchain (Base/EVM). Creates a permanent, tamper-evident on-chain record of the document fingerprint. If the bundle is already notarized, returns the existing attestation immediately (idempotent). Use when you need an immutable on-chain timestamp proving a document existed at a point in time. For quick integrity checks without on-chain cost, use bundle.verify instead. Also returns a signed action receipt (rcpt_...) binding this notarize call to the bundle manifest — list with receipt.list, verify with receipt.verify. PREREQUISITE: Bundle status must be "complete". Check status with bundle.get first. NOTE: Costs gas (ETH). The on-chain record is permanent and cannot be deleted even if the bundle is later purged. Returns: { bundle_id, attestation: { tx_hash, network, attested_at, key_id, eas_uid?, schema_uid? }, receipt: ActionReceipt|null } Example prompts:

"Notarize bundle ev_550e8400 on-chain so I have a permanent record."
"Put the fingerprint of my evidence bundle on the blockchain."
"Create an on-chain timestamp for this document bundle."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bundle_id`	Yes	Evidence bundle ID (ev_...) to notarize. Bundle must have status "complete". Example: "ev_550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`receipt`	Yes
`bundle_id`	Yes
`attestation`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: it mentions idempotency (returns existing attestation if already notarized), gas cost, permanence, and that it cannot be deleted. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured and front-loaded, but slightly verbose with example prompts and a detailed return structure. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description covers all necessary aspects: idempotency, prerequisites, costs, permanence, return structure, and related tools (bundle.verify, receipt.list, receipt.verify). It is fully self-contained.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by specifying the prerequisite (bundle status must be complete) and providing an example, which aids understanding beyond the schema's description.

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 that the tool notarizes an evidence bundle on-chain by writing its SHA-256 to the blockchain, creating a permanent record. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning bundle.verify for quick checks without on-chain cost.

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 states when to use (immutable on-chain timestamp), when not to (use bundle.verify for quick checks), and provides prerequisites (bundle status must be complete) and caveats (costs gas, permanent record).

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

All api 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with no overlap. The category prefixes (account, bundle, collection, document, job, receipt, url) and specific action names (get, notarize, verify, create, list, etc.) ensure that an agent can unambiguously select the correct tool for any task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent category.action or category.action_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., bundle.get, collection.add_document, url.translate). No mixed conventions or irregular names, making the pattern predictable and easy to learn.

Tool Count4/5

With 22 tools, the set is somewhat large but each tool addresses a distinct need within a broad domain (evidence management, document AI, collections, URL processing, job tracking, receipts). The count is slightly above the typical well-scoped range but still reasonable given the scope.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface has notable gaps: there is no tool to create or delete an evidence bundle, nor to update collections or bundles. The core workflow of creating a bundle from a document is missing, and the lifecycle is incomplete, which would likely cause agent failures in typical use cases.

Resources

Need Help?