mcp-server

Check Crypto Buying Power

check_buying_power

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether the user's VERIFIED crypto appears to cover a property price. Compares target_price_usd against verified buying power (the most a Proof of Funds letter can state, from verified wallets only) and lists what is still incomplete: identity check, wallet verification, or a shortfall. Optionally narrows to one asset. Use for "can my Bitcoin cover a $2 million home?" and before generating a Proof of Funds letter for a specific amount. Unverified wallets never count. This is an estimate of coverage, not a loan decision. Read-only: it does not move, sell, convert, or reserve any crypto.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset`	No	Limit the check to one crypto asset, as a ticker or name (BTC, Bitcoin, ZEC)
`target_price_usd`	No	Property price or Proof of Funds amount in US dollars. Omit to use the saved price, or to just report verified buying power.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`intro`	Yes	Short introduction shown while onboarding is under way; null once it is complete
`links`	Yes	Existing realopen.com pages for each step
`intent`	Yes	Workflow this request asked for, if any
`account`	Yes
`context`	Yes
`notices`	Yes
`summary`	Yes	Short plain-language summary. Lead with this; it reads well aloud.
`surface`	Yes	home \| panel \| inline
`unlocks`	Yes	What verification makes available, shown before there are results
`version`	Yes
`wallets`	Yes
`identity`	Yes
`progress`	Yes
`assessment`	Yes
`input_error`	No	Present when a supplied value could not be used
`next_action`	Yes	The one recommended next step
`buying_power`	Yes
`authenticated`	Yes
`proof_of_funds`	Yes
`blocked_request`	No	Present when the user asked for something these tools cannot do
`realscore_report`	Yes	The asset verification document for a mortgage lender. Not a loan decision.
`results_available`	Yes	True once there is buying power or a letter to show
`secondary_actions`	Yes	Things the user can also do now, such as continuing a wallet while an identity check is reviewed
`verification_guide`	No	How wallet verification works for the chosen asset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this explicitly ('does not move, sell, convert, or reserve any crypto'). It adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: verified-only counting, the fact that identity or wallet verification may be incomplete, and the estimation caveat.

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?

Five sentences but front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler; each clause carries information (scope, exclusions, caveat). Slightly long for a two-parameter read tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not detail return shape. It still tells the agent what comes back (coverage plus incomplete items) and the verified-only constraint, leaving nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the omit-to-use-saved-price behavior. The description only adds the framing that asset 'narrows to one asset,' which largely duplicates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('checks whether the user's VERIFIED crypto appears to cover a property price') and scopes the comparison to verified wallets only. An agent can immediately distinguish this from generate_proof_of_funds or get_wallet_summary.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('can my Bitcoin cover a $2 million home?'), a sequencing rule ('before generating a Proof of Funds letter for a specific amount'), and the exclusions that matter ('Unverified wallets never count'). It also names what it is not ('not a loan decision').

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

All mcp-server 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.