MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit

Signature verifier (EOA + smart wallets)

signature_verify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a personal_sign message or EIP-712 typed-data signature against an address, including smart-contract wallets (ERC-1271 / ERC-6492). Free: 10 calls/day; then $0.001/call via x402 (MCP params._meta["x402/payment"] or HTTP) or X-API-Key credits. [served by tools.moneytools.dev]

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "signature": "<signature>"
    },
    "name": "signature_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	chain for smart-wallet checks (default base)
`address`	Yes	expected signer (0x address)
`message`	No	signed text (personal_sign)
`signature`	Yes	0x signature (65+ bytes hex)
`typedData`	No	EIP-712 JSON instead of message

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedNov 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / address / description

Previous value: -"expected signer"New value: +"expected signer (0x address)"

changedInput schema / properties / address / examples

Previous value: -[
-  "0x..."
-]New value: +[
+  "0xf39Fd6e51aad88F6F4ce6aB8827279cffFb92266"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / message / examples

Added value: +[
+  "Sign in to MoneyTools example"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / signature / description

Previous value: -"0x signature"New value: +"0x signature (65+ bytes hex)"

addedInput schema / properties / signature / examples

Added value: +[
+  "0x63f1769398941dfea46d40d30c729a55e1bee0f000781ade7ac775b759dce0d55c404e2b015ce2f08893cad56457c4e3a77e01f6bd9a0b00ebe162c7b603aa511b"
+]

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: a 10 calls/day free quota followed by $0.001/call, and the payment mechanisms (x402 via MCP params._meta["x402/payment"] or HTTP, plus X-API-Key credits). It does not describe what a failed or malformed verification returns, leaving that to the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation before any commercial detail, with no filler or restated title. The bracketed server attribution adds little, and the payment sentence is dense, keeping it just short of ideal.

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?

An output schema exists and all five parameters are documented in the schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, supported signature standards, and payment model; the only meaningful gap is behavior on invalid signatures or errors, which the output schema presumably covers.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by framing message as personal_sign text versus typedData as EIP-712 JSON, implying they are mutually exclusive alternatives, which the schema does not state, and by calling out that chain only matters for smart-wallet checks.

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 (verify) plus the exact resource (personal_sign message or EIP-712 typed-data signature) and the scope of supported signer types (EOA, ERC-1271, ERC-6492 smart wallets). That specificity separates it from sibling verifiers such as hmac_verify and approval_verify without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement (verify a signature you already have against an expected address), and the pricing/payment sentence tells an agent how to transact beyond the free tier. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of rejecting the sibling verification tools, and no stated behavior for ambiguous inputs.

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

All MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit tools Inspect

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

Need Help?