vealth

Submit the signed credential record (step 2 of 2)

submit_credential_record

Complete the record: pass the BODY_JSON from prepare_credential_record UNCHANGED and the signature your wallet produced over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. Relays to the same public door any HTTP client uses (POST /labor/credential-record); this server holds no keys and no funds. Free with a valid signature. The record is PENDING until a person has checked the issuer's public lookup; ask credential_record_status where it stands, because Vealth sends no email. Cost and signer: free, no gas; signed by the person's own wallet or passkey, and the house never holds a key.

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": {
      "bodyJson": "<bodyJson>",
      "signature": "<signature>"
    },
    "name": "submit_credential_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bodyJson`	Yes	The exact BODY_JSON string from prepare_credential_record, 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.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive, but the description adds real context beyond them: it names the underlying endpoint (POST /labor/credential-record), notes the server holds no keys or funds, states it is free/no-gas with a valid signature, and explains the record stays PENDING until a human checks the public lookup. It omits retry semantics even though idempotentHint=false implies a resubmission may create a second record, which is the one meaningful behavioral gap.

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 action, input source, and follow-up are front-loaded, but the final sentence ('Cost and signer: free, no gas; signed by the person's own wallet or passkey, and the house never holds a key') largely repeats the earlier 'no keys and no funds. Free with a valid signature'. The unexplained brand name 'Vealth' also adds noise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 no explanation, and the lifecycle (PENDING, no email, query status separately) is covered. The remaining gap is around idempotency and duplicate-submission behavior, which matters for a non-idempotent write tool.

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 fully documented in the schema, including the 'unchanged' constraint and the personal_sign requirement. The description restates those points rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Complete the record') tied to a named predecessor (prepare_credential_record), and the title anchors it as step 2 of 2. An agent can tell this apart from the many other submit_* siblings because it names the exact prepare/submit pair and the downstream status tool.

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?

Clearly states the prerequisite sequence (take the output of prepare_credential_record) and the follow-up ('ask credential_record_status where it stands'). It does not state exclusions or what to do on a failed/duplicate submission, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?