mcp-server

generate_proof_of_funds

Generate a crypto Proof of Funds letter (PDF) for the authenticated user — the document a buyer attaches to a cash offer on real estate to show verified crypto holdings; it states a fiat amount with no crypto references, so it reads like any other cash-buyer Proof of Funds. Requires completed identity verification and at least one verified wallet. Returns a download link valid for 30 days. This creates a letter only — it does not move, convert, or reserve any funds; the purchase itself is funded through RealOpen outside this chat. The response renders an inline widget with a thumbnail preview and download/share controls; you do not need to repeat the download URL in your text response — the widget handles presentation. CANCELLED-CALL HANDLING: if a prior invocation 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 the POF was generated unless this tool actually returned a download_url — if the response is empty or missing, the call did not land and should be retried, not reported as complete. CEILING: the requested amount must be ≤ pof_ceiling_usd from get_wallet_summary; never use total_verified_usd or the sum of wallets[].total_usd as a ceiling — total_verified_usd is pre-haircut (before a volatility/pricing buffer) and the generator will reject amounts above the true ceiling. If unsure of the current ceiling, call get_wallet_summary first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes	Requested Proof of Funds amount
`currency`	No	Currency for the letter (default: USD)	USD

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes
`status`	Yes	ready when the letter generated successfully
`currency`	Yes
`file_name`	No
`valid_until`	No	ISO date — letter expires after 30 days
`download_url`	Yes	PDF download URL — handed to the widget; the model should not echo it
`thumbnail_url`	Yes	Top-of-letter PDF preview image URL — used by the widget

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedMay 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "amount": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "currency": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "download_url": {
+      "description": "PDF download URL — handed to the widget; the model should not echo it",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "file_name": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "ready when the letter generated successfully",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "thumbnail_url": {
+      "description": "Top-of-letter PDF preview image URL — used by the widget",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "valid_until": {
+      "description": "ISO date — letter expires after 30 days",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "amount",
+    "currency",
+    "download_url",
+    "thumbnail_url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedApr 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / amount / description

Previous value: -"Requested proof-of-funds amount"New value: +"Requested Proof of Funds amount"

First observedApr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses several important behaviors: the client-side consent prompt cancellation, the 30-day download link validity, the inline widget presentation, and the rule that success must not be reported unless a download_url was actually returned. It clarifies that the tool creates a letter only, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false without contradiction.

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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: context, prerequisites, download-link lifespan, widget handling, cancellation handling, and ceiling constraints are all operationally relevant. The main purpose is front-loaded, and advanced caveats are grouped into labeled sections (CANCELLED-CALL HANDLING, CEILING), making it easy to parse.

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?

This is a side-effectful, non-idempotent tool with external validation and UI feedback, and the description covers all of it: prerequisites, return-link validity, widget behavior, error handling for canceled calls, and the ceiling rule. With an output schema present, return-values need no prose, and the failure-handling guidance addresses the most likely agent mistake.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial semantic value for amount by introducing the pof_ceiling_usd constraint from get_wallet_summary and warning against using total_verified_usd or wallet sums as ceilings. Currency, however, receives no additional nuance beyond the schema's enum/default.

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 specific verb ('Generate'), names the artifact ('crypto Proof of Funds letter (PDF)'), and the subject ('the authenticated user'). It also distinguishes the tool from sibling getters by explaining the document's real-estate context, so an agent can immediately tell this is a document-generation call, not a data-retrieval one.

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?

The description explicitly states the use case (attach to a cash offer on real estate), prerequisites (completed identity verification and at least one verified wallet), and a when-not boundary ('creates a letter only — it does not move, convert, or reserve any funds'). It also instructs the agent to call get_wallet_summary first when unsure of the ceiling, which is explicit cross-tool guidance.

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.