Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.realopengroup

refresh_wallet_verification

Regenerate verification challenges for an existing unverified wallet. Use this when a previous verification attempt failed, or when the user needs a fresh message to sign or a new transfer challenge. Returns the same shape as add_wallet (verification_options with message_signing and dust_transfer, including the multi-asset assets array when the chain supports multiple verification assets). 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. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wallet_idYesInternal wallet UUID from a prior add_wallet or get_wallet_summary response. Do NOT show this ID to the user or ask them for it — look it up from the address they mentioned.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetsNo
statusNo
addressNo
messageNo
total_usdNo
wallet_idNo
blockchainNo
linked_addressesNo
ownership_statusNo
zero_balance_hintNo
verification_optionsNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Given annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context. It explains the widget renders inline, user interacts via clicking rather than reading values aloud, that the widget internally calls verify_wallet_signature/verify_wallet_transfer, that those silent calls may not produce visible follow-up, and that prior output becomes stale after widget use. This goes far beyond the annotations and is essential for correct agent behavior.

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 carries necessary operational detail: purpose, return shape, widget behavior, post-verify re-check procedure, and rejection of stale output. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and progressively adds context, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description still explains the response shape and the widget's behavior, which is critical for interpreting results. It also covers edge cases like silent internal calls and stale output, making the description fully complete for the tool's complexity and the scenario of user interaction.

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?

The tool description does not mention wallet_id at all; all parameter semantics (e.g., 'Internal wallet UUID', 'Do NOT show this ID') are provided in the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, but the description itself adds no incremental parameter meaning.

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+resource: 'Regenerate verification challenges for an existing unverified wallet.' It clearly distinguishes this from related sibling tools like add_wallet, verify_wallet_signature, and get_wallet_summary by focusing on regeneration of challenges after failed attempts or fresh need.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'Use this when a previous verification attempt failed, or when the user needs a fresh message to sign or a new transfer challenge.' It also instructs when NOT to rely on prior output and directs to call get_wallet_summary after widget use, effectively naming an alternative for re-checking verification status.

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