mcp-server

verify_wallet_signature

Submit a signed message to prove ownership of a crypto wallet — one of the two ways RealOpen verifies a wallet before its balance counts toward a crypto Proof of Funds letter for a real estate offer. The user must have signed the exact verification message provided by add_wallet. When collecting the signature from the user, remind them to paste the full signature hash from their wallet. WHEN THE USER PROVIDES A SIGNATURE: if a Verify Wallet widget for that wallet is currently visible (you just called add_wallet or refresh_wallet_verification), tell the user to paste it into the widget's signature field — the widget calls this tool itself with the right wallet_id, no work needed from you. If no Verify Wallet widget is on screen (e.g. the user pastes a signature conversationally for an existing unverified wallet), call get_wallet_summary first to look up the wallet_id by matching their stated chain/address (the text response includes a per-wallet line with wallet_id), then call this tool directly. Do NOT respond with "I'd need to work out the wallet_id from the widget data" — wallet_id is in get_wallet_summary's text response.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`signature`	Yes	The signature hash produced by signing the verification message with your wallet
`wallet_id`	Yes	Internal 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 yourself from the user's stated address/blockchain.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	verified \| pending \| failed \| already_verified
`message`	No
`wallet_id`	No
`ownership_status`	No	Underlying wallet state — VERIFIED_SIGNATURE \| PENDING_SIGNATURE \| NOT_VERIFIED \| FAILED

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": {
+    "message": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ownership_status": {
+      "description": "Underlying wallet state — VERIFIED_SIGNATURE | PENDING_SIGNATURE | NOT_VERIFIED | FAILED",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "verified | pending | failed | already_verified",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "wallet_id": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedApr 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / wallet_id / description

Previous value: -"Wallet UUID from the add_wallet response"New value: +"Internal 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 yourself from the user's stated address/blockchain."

First observedApr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the state-changing, non-idempotent nature is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the user must sign the exact message issued by add_wallet, the widget may invoke this tool itself, and the signature must be the full hash. It does not spell out failure modes or what verification state changes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 and prerequisite are front-loaded, then usage is split into clear conditional branches. It is verbose, and the closing anti-pattern warning ('Do NOT respond with...') is somewhat defensive, but every sentence carries routing or workflow information rather than filler.

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?

With an output schema available the description need not explain returns, and annotations cover the safety profile. Together with the branching workflow and prerequisite message, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly in both widget and conversational paths.

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, but the description adds genuine operational meaning: it explains how an agent obtains wallet_id (match the user's stated chain/address against get_wallet_summary's per-wallet line) and that the ID must never be surfaced to the user. That is procedural context the schema field description alone does not convey.

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 (submit a signed message to verify wallet ownership) and frames it against the sibling verify_wallet_transfer by calling itself 'one of the two ways RealOpen verifies a wallet'. An agent can distinguish it from the transfer-based sibling without reading either schema.

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 branching guidance: use the widget when visible, otherwise call get_wallet_summary to resolve wallet_id then call directly. It also names the prerequisite (the exact message from add_wallet) and the refresh/add siblings that create the widget context. Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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.