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

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint:false, so the tool may mutate state, but the description does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, asynchronous behavior, or what happens after optimization. The 'all parameters are in UTC' note is a parameter-format detail, not an operation behavior. Without meaningful behavioral disclosure, the agent cannot anticipate the tool's effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short and front-loaded, but the first sentence merely restates the tool name, and the second sentence is an irrelevant detail about timezone. It is concise in length but not in value; the space is not used to clarify anything important about the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no meaningful annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks the parameters' purposes, return behavior, side effects, and guidance for alternatives. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call or interpret the result from this definition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description mentions none of the nine parameters and gives no meaning for target_return, risk_tolerance, time_horizon, constraints, etc. The note 'no timezone parameters' does not explain any parameter semantics. The description completely fails to compensate for the empty parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb ('Optimize') and a resource ('investment portfolio'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it does not explain what optimization means in this context (e.g., rebalancing, target returns, risk constraints), making the purpose vague. It also does not differentiate this tool from the sibling get_portfolio_* tools beyond the word 'optimize'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_assets, get_portfolio_allocations, get_portfolio_risk, or get_portfolio_performance. The only usage-related statement is about timezone parameters, which does not help an agent decide when to invoke the tool. It neither names alternatives nor provides exclusions.

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.