Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.realopengroup

verify_wallet_signature

Submit a signed message to verify wallet ownership. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signatureYesThe signature hash produced by signing the verification message with your wallet
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 yourself from the user's stated address/blockchain.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesverified | pending | failed | already_verified
messageNo
wallet_idNo
ownership_statusNoUnderlying wallet state — VERIFIED_SIGNATURE | PENDING_SIGNATURE | NOT_VERIFIED | FAILED

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: the widget automatically invokes this tool with the correct wallet_id, meaning the agent should not call it when the widget is visible. It also warns against a specific failure response and directs the agent to get_wallet_summary for lookup, providing rich context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is long and includes a capitalized conditional section, but every sentence serves a purpose—there's no fluff. The structure is logical (purpose, user instruction, widget vs. direct-call decision tree, and a corrective warning). While longer than ideal, it remains well-organized and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's interactive complexity (widget visibility, wallet_id lookup, user signature collection), the description covers all necessary scenarios and even anticipates a common mistake. With an output schema present, return-value details need not be explained. The guidance is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in any situation.

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 meaningful extra context: it reminds the agent to ask the user for the 'full signature hash' and clarifies that wallet_id must never be shown or requested from the user, reinforcing the schema's caution with concrete workflow steps. This pushes it above baseline.

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 'Submit a signed message to verify wallet ownership,' which is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like verify_wallet_transfer. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to wallet ownership verification.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use the widget if visible, otherwise call get_wallet_summary first to find the wallet_id. It also provides a clear exclusion ('the widget calls this tool itself, no work needed from you') and names the alternative lookup path, covering when/not and alternatives.

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