verantis-mcp

check_wallet

Read-only

Check a recipient wallet BEFORE your agent pays it — a pre-payment guard. Pass the pay-to address a service asked you to pay; returns whether Verantis knows the wallet, its EARNED reputation tier, and human-readable reasons. A wallet IS a settlement rail, so the reply names the rail it settles on ('rail': chain + protocols), its host, on-chain buyer retention (distinct buyers, repeat rate, distribution), and the host's OTHER rails ('also_settles_on'). If 'shared_wallet' is true the address fronts many services (a relay/treasury) so the reputation reflects the pool, not one service — treat with care. An unknown or low-reputation recipient is a reason to pause.

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": {
      "pay_to": "<pay_to>"
    },
    "name": "check_wallet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pay_to`	Yes	recipient wallet address (0x… for Base/EVM, base58 for Solana)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already present, the description expands substantially on what the agent can expect: reputation tier, human-readable reasons, settlement rail, host, buyer retention, other rails, and the shared_wallet caveat. It also implicitly explains the tool's informational, non-mutating nature by framing it as a guard before payment.

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 longer than average but front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently packs relevant behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place: pre-payment use, return content, rail semantics, shared_wallet hazard, and the risk warning. It could be tightened slightly, but all content is useful.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a thorough mental model of what will be returned, including reputation, human-readable reasons, settlement rail, host, customer-retention metrics, other settlement rails, and the shared_wallet meaning. It is complete for an agent to know exactly when this tool answers and how to interpret its result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single pay_to parameter, including format for EVM and Solana addresses. The description adds crucial semantic detail beyond the schema: pay_to is the service-provided settlement address, and the tool will return wallet reputation across settlement rails. This is more than the schema alone provides.

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?

The description opens with a clear, specific purpose: 'Check a recipient wallet BEFORE your agent pays it — a pre-payment guard.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_service and find_paid_service by targeting the wallet of the service, not the service itself. It also states exactly what it returns.

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 gives explicit usage context: pass the pay-to address a service asked you to pay and do this before payment. It also gives decision guidance, such as treating shared_wallet results with care and pausing for unknown/low-reputation recipients. It does not explicitly rule out alternative tools, but the sibling tools are not relevant alternatives for wallet checks.

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

All verantis-mcp 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.