vealth

Verify a work claim into a signed certificate

verify_work

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a proof URI is safely machine-checkable, then get the exact path to Vealth's paid verification door: a SIGNED, re-checkable certificate anyone can reproduce — no oracle, no judge. Digital claims only; physical proof (photo + GPS + signature) is honestly routed to human review, never faked. This tool validates and instructs; the caller pays the door from their own wallet. Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workId`	No	Optional board packet id, to check its specific proof requirement.
`proofUri`	Yes	https URL of the LIVE proof to verify. No auth, no query parameters.
`standard`	No	Optional standard key the claim is made against.
`definitionId`	No	Optional self-verifying definition id, if known.

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: the tool validates and instructs, does not pay the door itself, is free and keyless, and does not fake physical proof. This clarifies cost, signing, and trust behavior, though it does not cover auth or rate-limit details.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and remains reasonably compact. Some phrasing is rhetorical ('honestly routed,' 'never faked'), but it still supports the behavioral context rather than wasting space.

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?

Given an output schema, full parameter coverage, and annotations, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It explains the digital-only scope and the validate-then-instruct behavior, with only minor ambiguity around sibling selection.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only light context such as 'digital claims only' and 'safely machine-checkable,' without additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

The description states specific actions: check a proof URI for machine-checkability and return the path to a paid verification door for a signed, re-checkable certificate. It clearly distinguishes digital claims from physical proof routing, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling proof-submission tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a useful condition: digital claims only, while physical proof is routed to human review. However, it does not name when to use this versus siblings like prepare_proof, submit_proof, or verify_anchor, leaving the alternative selection implied rather than explicit.

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?