Collar Guardrail — Pre-Trade Risk Layer

Verify Audit Trail

verify_audit_trail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify the tamper-evident audit trail for a wallet's past guardrail decisions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many recent records to verify (1-1000, default 100).
`wallet`	Yes	EVM wallet address (0x...).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	If present, verification could not run.
`detail`	No
`healthy`	No	True only if every record's hash matches and the chain is unbroken.
`guidance`	No
`records_checked`	No	Number of records verified.
`first_broken_seq`	No	Sequence number of the first broken link, if any.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 7, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / detail

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / guidance

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / healthy / default
```
Added value: +false
```
removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "healthy"
-]
```

First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful detail that the trail is 'tamper-evident' (i.e., integrity verification), but says nothing about what a failed verification yields or the cost of a large limit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, object and scope all appear immediately. It is efficient, though it leaves room for one more clause that would have added routing or result context.

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?

With an output schema handling return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey intent, which it does. The one gap is what verification failure or the limit's practical meaning implies, but nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the schema documents both wallet (EVM address) and limit (1-1000, default 100). The description contributes no additional meaning about either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb (verify) and resource (tamper-evident audit trail), plus the scope: a wallet's past guardrail decisions. It is clearly distinct from siblings like check_token_safety and evaluate_trade, though it never explicitly names what separates it from 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 only implied: the phrase 'for a wallet's past guardrail decisions' suggests when it is relevant, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus simulating or evaluating. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

All Collar Guardrail — Pre-Trade Risk Layer 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.