Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Harashsuq

by com.harashsuq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Finish proving your wallet

verify_agent_wallet

Send back the message from get_wallet_challenge, unchanged, with its signature. On success that address becomes the one this account pays from, and every order is frozen against it: a payment from any other wallet is not that order's payment and is not delivered. Needs your API key in the Authorization header: "Bearer hsq_agent_...".

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "message": "<message>",
      "signature": "<signature>"
    },
    "name": "verify_agent_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesExactly the message get_wallet_challenge returned.
signatureYesThat message, signed by the address (EIP-191).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement (Bearer API key), the persistent side effect on the account's payout address, and the enforcement rule that payments from other wallets are not delivered. Missing are failure behavior for an invalid signature, whether a second verification replaces the bound address, and any idempotency or rate-limit notes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the consequence, then the auth requirement. No filler and nothing buried; each sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what to send, what it does to the account, and how to authenticate. It leaves the failure path and re-verification semantics unspecified, which are the remaining gaps an agent would want.

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, but the description adds a real constraint the schema only implies: the message must be sent back *unchanged*. That is the single most likely way an agent would break the call (reformatting or re-serializing the message), so the added meaning is material.

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 concrete action (send back the challenge message with its signature) and names the exact sibling that produces the input, get_wallet_challenge, so the agent can place it in the flow without opening the schema. The follow-on effect (that address becomes the account's paying wallet) confirms what the operation actually accomplishes.

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 prerequisite is explicit: the message must come from get_wallet_challenge. It also states the operational consequence, which implicitly tells the agent this is a once-per-wallet binding step. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g. re-verifying an already-bound wallet) or which siblings precede/follow it.

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

All Harashsuq 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