Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

mcp-server

by io.github.realopengroup
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

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

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, not destructive), so the description's added context is what counts: it discloses the prerequisite that the signature must be over the exact message from add_wallet, and that verification gates whether the balance counts toward Proof of Funds. It does not say what happens on a bad signature or whether resubmission is allowed, leaving a gap for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then prerequisites, then the branching procedure — a sensible order. It is on the long side and the closing admonition about not replying 'I'd need to work out the wallet_id' reads as a workaround for a prior failure mode rather than general guidance.

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 present, return values needn't be explained; the description covers the prerequisite, the two invocation paths, and ID sourcing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes further by giving operational semantics for wallet_id (look it up from the user's stated chain/address via get_wallet_summary, never show or ask for it) and by telling the agent to remind the user to paste the full signature hash.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Submit a signed message to prove ownership of a crypto wallet') and situates it in the larger workflow (counts toward a crypto Proof of Funds letter). It implicitly distinguishes itself from add_wallet and verify_wallet_transfer by naming the prerequisite message from add_wallet.

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 branches on context: if a Verify Wallet widget is visible, the widget itself calls this tool; if not, call get_wallet_summary first then call this tool directly. Prerequisites and the alternative path are both named, with nothing 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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources