vealth

What this wallet has already paid, itemized

account_statement

Read-onlyIdempotent

One wallet's complete payment history with this server: every settled call, what it cost, which door it bought, and the on-chain hash that proves it — plus totals and a per-door breakdown. Use it when someone asks what they have spent here, whether a call was charged twice, or for an expense record. Each line settled from the caller's own wallet on a public chain, so every hash is independently verifiable without trusting this server. Free, keyless, read-only, and it stores nothing about anyone. Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Optional cap on payments returned (newest first).
`wallet`	Yes	The 0x… address that paid. The ADDRESS only, never a private key.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`tool`	No
`funded`	No
`payUsd`	No
`workId`	No
`claimId`	No
`claimable`	No
`next_call`	No
`proofRule`	No
`fulfillableBy`	No
`definitionOfDone`	No
`needs_from_caller`	No
`notClaimableReason`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 26, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / claimable
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / notClaimableReason
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "claimId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "definitionOfDone": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "array",
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "fulfillableBy": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "funded": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "needs_from_caller": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "next_call": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "payUsd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "proofRule": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "workId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedAug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: settlement happens from the caller's own wallet on a public chain, each hash is independently verifiable without trusting the server, and nothing about anyone is stored. Free/keyless/no-signing is stated too. It falls short of 5 because the same cost/signer facts are repeated rather than adding depth (e.g., retention window or what a partial history looks like).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the closing clause repeats the free/keyless/no-signing claim already made two sentences earlier ('Free, keyless, read-only… Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign'). That redundancy costs a point despite otherwise tight prose.

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, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still signals totals plus a per-door breakdown. Combined with the privacy and verifiability disclosures, this is adequate for a read-only two-parameter tool; only sibling disambiguation 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both wallet and limit, including the 'newest first' ordering. The description reinforces that the record is scoped to a single wallet but adds no new syntax or semantics for the limit parameter; baseline 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?

States a specific resource and scope: one wallet's complete payment history with this server, itemized by call, cost, 'door', and on-chain hash, plus totals. It clearly is a per-wallet expense/statement read, but it never distinguishes itself from near siblings like my_ledger or my_money, so an agent must infer the choice.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers: 'when someone asks what they have spent here, whether a call was charged twice, or for an expense record.' That covers several real intents clearly, but no when-not-to-use condition or named alternative is offered.

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

All vealth 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?