PriorSeal

priorseal_observe_execution

Persist an observation request for an already-submitted EVM or Solana transaction, then issue evidence when configured observation completes. This can consume configured Agent credits; send an idempotency key. It never broadcasts a transaction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	The complete PriorSeal execution-observation request.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`risk`	Yes
`tool`	Yes
`schema`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`nextAction`	Yes
`requiresHumanSignature`	Yes
`mayBroadcastTransaction`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {},
+    "mayBroadcastTransaction": {
+      "const": false
+    },
+    "nextAction": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "requiresHumanSignature": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "risk": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "level": {
+          "enum": [
+            "read_only",
+            "human_signature_required",
+            "service_state_change",
+            "verification_only",
+            "input_or_service_error"
+          ]
+        },
+        "reasonCode": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "level",
+        "reasonCode"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "schema": {
+      "const": "priorseal.mcp.tool-result.v1"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "const": "priorseal_observe_execution"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "schema",
+    "tool",
+    "status",
+    "nextAction",
+    "requiresHumanSignature",
+    "mayBroadcastTransaction",
+    "risk",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it persists a request, issues evidence later, can consume configured Agent credits, recommends an idempotency key, and never broadcasts a transaction. It does not cover auth or rate limits beyond credits.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds useful operational or safety information. Slightly more structure could separate the cost/idempotency advice, but overall it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills important gaps by disclosing credit consumption, idempotency-key recommendation, and non-broadcast behavior. It could mention how to monitor observation completion via a sibling tool, but it is otherwise complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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% for the single required input parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds only the idempotency-key advice and the already-submitted transaction context, without detailing the nested request fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: persist an observation request for an already-submitted EVM or Solana transaction, then issue evidence when observation completes. It also clarifies it never broadcasts a transaction, which helps differentiate it from execution tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as get_observation_job or get_evidence_bundle.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: for an already-submitted transaction, after submission, with an idempotency key. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for checking observation status, but the triggering condition is clear.

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

All PriorSeal 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.