vealth

Submit the signed claim (step 2 of 2)

submit_claim

Complete the claim: pass the BODY_JSON string from prepare_claim UNCHANGED plus the signature your wallet produced over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. This server relays the signed request to the same public claim gate any HTTP client uses — it holds no keys and no funds, and without your signature it can do nothing. Success returns your claimId; keep it, proof submission needs it. Cost and signer: free, no gas; signed by the person's own wallet or passkey, and the house never holds a key.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bodyJson`	Yes	The exact BODY_JSON string from prepare_claim, unchanged.
`signature`	Yes	The 0x… personal_sign output over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN.

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"
+}

First observedAug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the trust model (relay to the same public claim gate any HTTP client uses, server holds no keys or funds, cannot act without the signature), the cost profile (free, no gas), the signing authority (person's own wallet or passkey), and the return value (claimId). This is exactly the context an agent needs to reassure a user about a signature-bearing call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and inputs, then the trust/cost context, then the return value. Slightly redundant on key custody ("holds no keys and no funds" restated as "the house never holds a key"), but every sentence is functional.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still flags the one return value that matters downstream (claimId for proof submission). With 100% schema coverage, both annotations and a sequenced sibling workflow documented, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 both parameters are already documented with equal specificity. The description reinforces the critical constraint (pass BODY_JSON UNCHANGED, signature is over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN) but adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ("Complete the claim") and positions itself precisely as step 2 of 2, naming prepare_claim as the producer of the inputs. An agent can distinguish it from the many prepare_* siblings and from submit_proof without opening any schema.

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?

Makes the sequence explicit: use after prepare_claim and after the wallet has signed MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, and it names the downstream consumer (proof submission needs the claimId). It lacks an explicit "do not call before preparing" exclusion or a pointer to how_to_claim, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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?