Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AgentTrust

by io.github.eamwhite1
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin
This connector has been deprecated

This connector has been replaced by xrpl-referee.

Get Wallet Verification Challenge

get_wallet_verification_challenge
Read-only

Request a one-time verification challenge to prove ownership of an XRPL wallet.

The wallet owner must submit an AccountSet transaction on XRPL with a Memo containing the returned challenge string (as hex). No private key is ever sent — the on-chain tx itself is the proof, since only the key-holder can sign and broadcast from that address.

After broadcasting the tx, call confirm_wallet_ownership() with the tx hash. Challenge expires in 30 minutes.

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": {
      "wallet_address": "<wallet_address>"
    },
    "name": "get_wallet_verification_challenge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wallet_addressYesThe XRPL wallet address (r...) whose ownership you want to prove.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds traits beyond the annotations: the challenge is one-time (consistent with idempotentHint=false), expires in 30 minutes, requires the memo value as hex, and no private key is ever transmitted because the signed on-chain tx is the proof. These are operationally critical details an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the mechanism, then the required follow-up call, then the expiry constraint. Every sentence carries information the agent needs to act.

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?

Covers the mechanism, the signing requirement, the follow-up tool, and the 30-minute TTL, and return values are covered by the output schema. It leaves minor gaps such as what happens if the challenge expires or is reused, but nothing required for a correct invocation 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents wallet_address at 100% coverage, including the 'r...' format hint. The description adds no input-side syntax beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies; the hex detail it mentions concerns the memo payload, not this parameter.

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?

'Request a one-time verification challenge to prove ownership of an XRPL wallet' states a specific verb (request), a distinct resource (verification challenge), and the scope (ownership proof for an XRPL wallet). It is clearly separable from siblings like confirm_wallet_ownership and verify_wallet_domain, which it does not duplicate.

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?

States when to use it (to prove ownership) and prescribes the follow-up: broadcast the AccountSet tx then call confirm_wallet_ownership() with the tx hash. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are given, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All AgentTrust toolsInspect
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