Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.realopengroup

add_wallet

Idempotent

Submit a public wallet address for verification. Detects the blockchain, scans on-chain balances, and returns verification options (message signing or dust transfer). Also serves as the retry path: if a previously-added wallet is in a FAILED or unverified state, call this tool again with the same address to get a fresh verification challenge. If the wallet is already verified, the response will indicate that. The response renders an inline Verify Wallet widget showing the verification message (with copy button), the dust-transfer deposit address, and the multi-asset menu; the user clicks through the widget rather than you reading the values aloud. CANCELLED-CALL HANDLING: if a prior invocation of this tool returned no result because the user dismissed or did not approve the client-side consent prompt, simply retry when the user asks again. Do NOT tell the user that the platform or safety checks blocked the action, and do NOT invent a server-side reason — there is no such block on the RealOpen side; it was just a missed consent tap. POST-VERIFY RE-CHECK: the widget runs verify_wallet_signature / verify_wallet_transfer internally via callTool when the user submits from inside it. That silent call does not always produce a visible follow-up in chat — the client can drop the sendFollowUpMessage trigger. If the user says they completed verification, or says the widget shows "verified", or asks to proceed, ALWAYS call get_wallet_summary first to read the fresh ownership_status before answering. Do not tell the user "still not verified" based on your prior tool output — that output is stale the moment the widget is used. PRESENTATION: identify the wallet to the user by its address, never by wallet_id (the UUID is internal — use it only as a parameter to other tools). EVM CHAIN NOTE: 0x... addresses are verified across Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, and BNB Smart Chain. Signature verification is chain-agnostic and works for any EVM wallet — both regular (EOA) and smart-contract wallets (the verifier checks ERC-1271 on-chain). Dust-transfer verification works on Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, and BNB Smart Chain too: each dust-transfer option is tagged with its chain (e.g. "USDC on Base", "BNB on BNB Chain"), so the user must send on the chain shown for that option. (Polygon is also supported for signature verification.) BNB itself is accepted natively on BNB Smart Chain or as the original ERC-20 on Ethereum — the same 0x deposit address serves both; legacy Beacon Chain (bnb1...) addresses are not supported. ZERO-BALANCE NOTE: If total_usd is 0, do NOT assume the wallet is empty. Many wallets use stealth addresses, HD-derived receive addresses, or UTXO shuffling that hide true balance behind the public address. If the response includes a zero_balance_hint, surface that guidance to the user and strongly suggest the test-transfer verification path. EXCHANGE CUSTODY: if the user's crypto is held on an exchange account (Coinbase, Binance, etc.) — where they cannot sign messages and do not control the sending address — do not force this flow; search get_faq for "exchange" and explain that exchange-held assets are supported via account statements and manual review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesThe public wallet address to add

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetsNoPer-asset on-chain balances detected for this wallet
statusNoSet to "already_verified" when re-adding an already-verified wallet
addressNo
messageNo
total_usdNo
wallet_idNo
blockchainNo
linked_addressesNo
ownership_statusNoNOT_VERIFIED | PENDING_SIGNATURE | PENDING_TRANSACTION | VERIFIED_SIGNATURE | VERIFIED_TRANSACTION | FAILED
zero_balance_hintNo
verification_optionsNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond annotations by disclosing idempotent retry semantics, widget rendering and user interaction, CANCELLED-CALL handling, silent internal verification calls, EVM chain coverage, zero-balance caveats, and exchange custody limitations. The description is consistent with idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; no contradiction.

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 long but well-organized into labeled sections (CANCELLED-CALL HANDLING, POST-VERIFY RE-CHECK, PRESENTATION, EVM CHAIN NOTE, ZERO-BALANCE NOTE, EXCHANGE CUSTODY). Nearly every sentence carries operational weight, but the length is substantial for a one-parameter tool and could be tightened without losing value.

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?

Given the tool's complex interaction model, output widget, chain-specific behavior, and multiple edge cases, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers return handling, failure modes, user consent dismissal, stale data risks, and alternative verification paths, leaving no major operational gap.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Though the schema covers the single address parameter at 100%, the description adds critical semantics: public vs. internal wallet_id, EVM address format support across chains, BNB native/ERC-20 address behavior, and unsupported Beacon Chain addresses. This materially enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Submit a public wallet address for verification,' and explains it 'Detects the blockchain, scans on-chain balances, and returns verification options.' It also distinguishes itself from verification-specific siblings by describing the add/retry flow rather than final verification.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: retry path for FAILED/unverified wallets, behavior when already verified, post-verify re-check via get_wallet_summary, and avoidance for exchange-held assets with direction to get_faq. It also distinguishes from internal verify_wallet_signature/verify_wallet_transfer calls.

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

All mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (wallet management, verification, knowledge lookup, marketing, account status), but there is minor overlap between add_wallet and refresh_wallet_verification (both generate verification challenges) and between get_started and get_account_status (both touch on next-step resolution). Descriptions clarify the differences, so confusion is unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_wallet, get_wallet_summary, verify_wallet_transfer), with only 'logout' as a single verb, which is still consistent with the imperative style. No mixed conventions or cryptic names.

Tool Count4/5

The server exposes 20 tools, which is on the heavier side of the typical range but appropriate for the broad domain (wallet operations, verification, KYC, knowledge base, marketing assets, referral tracking). Each tool has a distinct role, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle for crypto-to-real-estate transactions: wallet management (add, remove, refresh, verify), identity verification, proof-of-funds generation, knowledge tools (fees, coverage, supported crypto, how-it-works), marketing (snippets, assets, referral), and account navigation (get_started, logout). No obvious gaps that would leave an agent stuck.

Resources