vealth

Submit the signed proof (step 2 of 2)

submit_proof

Relay the signed proof to the public completion gate: pass workId, the BODY_JSON from prepare_proof UNCHANGED, and the signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. Approval follows (the creator, or self-verification where the packet supports it); on a funded packet, approval releases the wage into settlement; on an unfunded packet, approval RECORDS earned credit — never a settlement by itself. work_status shows where it stands. 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
`workId`	Yes	The packet id.
`bodyJson`	Yes	The exact BODY_JSON string from prepare_proof, 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 by naming what approval actually does downstream: on a funded packet it releases the wage into settlement, on an unfunded packet it only RECORDS earned credit and is 'never a settlement by itself.' It also discloses who approves, that the call is free/no gas, and that signing uses the person's own wallet or passkey with the house never holding a key — none of which the annotations convey.

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-loads the action and the three inputs before the downstream consequences, and every clause carries substantive information. It is a dense run-on block rather than a structured list, which slightly hurts scanability for a multi-step tool.

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?

Covers the full lifecycle an agent needs: required inputs and their provenance, what approval grants under both funded and unfunded conditions, cost/signer model, and where to check status. With an output schema present, no return-value explanation is owed.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the critical constraint (bodyJson must be UNCHANGED, signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN) but adds no syntax, format, or failure-mode detail beyond it; 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Relay the signed proof to the public completion gate' — and anchors it as step 2 of the prepare_proof/submit_proof pair. An agent can immediately distinguish it from prepare_proof and from sibling submit_* tools without opening a 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?

Gives clear prerequisites: call only with workId, the BODY_JSON from prepare_proof UNCHANGED, and the signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, which implicitly sequences it after prepare_proof. It also points to work_status for follow-up state. It stops short of an explicit 'do not call before prepare_proof / do not re-sign the body' exclusion, so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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?