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 (optional on a financed offer, where the lender's preapproval backs the offer). 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

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

Output 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 changedOct 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by clarifying the tool creates a letter only and does not move, convert, or reserve funds, that the download link is valid for 30 days, that an inline widget renders, and that cancelled/failed calls should be retried rather than reported as success. The ceiling-rejection behavior and the warning against using total_verified_usd are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the ALL-CAPS section labels (CANCELLED-CALL HANDLING, CEILING) make the critical operational guidance scannable. It is longer than ideal — the widget/download-URL passage and the financed-offer aside could be trimmed — but nearly every sentence carries distinct information.

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 the description still names the key return value (download_url), which is what the agent must check before telling the user the POF was generated. With prerequisites, ceiling rule, fund-safety disclosure, and retry semantics all covered, nothing an agent needs to invoke or report this tool correctly is missing.

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 earns above that by giving real semantic constraints on amount: it must be ≤ pof_ceiling_usd from get_wallet_summary, and it explains why total_verified_usd is not a valid ceiling because it is pre-haircut. Currency is left to the schema, which handles it adequately via the enum.

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+resource+artifact: generate a crypto Proof of Funds letter PDF for the authenticated user, with a clear explanation of what the document is and what it omits (no crypto references). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_wallet_summary or generate_realscore_report.

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?

Explicitly frames when this applies (cash offer on real estate, optional on financed offers) and states prerequisites: completed identity verification and at least one verified wallet. It also routes to get_wallet_summary when the ceiling is unknown, which is a concrete alternative-call instruction.

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.