Skip to main content
Glama

Attest

by io.github.attestagents

attest_guard

Verify a live 402 payment offer at the moment of spend. Pass the EXACT offer you just received (url, payTo, amount, asset, network) and get an allow / warn / block verdict with machine-readable reasons: wallet mismatch vs the verified payout wallet, price swaps vs the last verified quote, danger flags, blocklisted wallets, and typosquats. Call this AFTER receiving a 402 offer and BEFORE authorizing the payment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe endpoint URL you are about to pay.
assetYesAsset contract address or symbol from the offer.
payToYesThe payout address presented in the live 402 offer.
amountYesThe offered amount in atomic units, as a string.
schemeNoOptional payment scheme (e.g. exact).
networkYesNetwork / chain identifier from the offer (e.g. base, solana).

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Describes return verdict types (allow/warn/block) and reasons (mismatch, swaps, flags, blocklists, typosquats). No annotation provided, so description carries full burden; it does well but could mention if it mutates state (likely not).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return value format. Covers when to use, what to pass, and expected output for a 6-parameter tool with full schema coverage.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% but description adds vital context: 'Pass the EXACT offer you just received', ensuring precise use. Also clarifies 'scheme' as optional beyond schema.

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 the tool verifies a live 402 payment offer, with specific verb 'verify' and resource 'offer'. It distinguishes from sibling 'attest_scan' by focusing on spend-time verification.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this AFTER receiving a 402 offer and BEFORE authorizing the payment', providing clear temporal context. Lacks explicit mention of when not to use or alternatives, but sibling context is implied.

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

All Attest toolsInspect
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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one verifies a specific 402 offer at spend time, the other scans an endpoint for a safety grade before paying. No overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow the same 'attest_' prefix with a verb (guard, scan), creating a predictable pattern.

Tool Count4/5

With only 2 tools, the set is slightly small but appropriate for a focused payment verification utility; each tool serves a distinct and necessary step.

Completeness4/5

The two tools cover the core workflow of scanning an endpoint and verifying an offer. Minor gaps (e.g., historical checks) exist but the surface is adequate for the stated purpose.

Resources