mcp-server

verify_wallet_transfer

Submit a transaction hash for the dust/test transfer verification method — the other way to prove ownership of a crypto wallet so its balance counts toward a crypto Proof of Funds letter. The test transfer is a tiny amount the user sends from their own wallet purely to prove ownership; it is not a payment toward a property, and this tool does not move funds. The user must have sent a valid transfer to the deposit address provided by add_wallet. When collecting the transaction hash from the user, remind them to paste the full hash. HASH FORMAT: a real tx hash is 64 hex characters (Bitcoin/TRON/XRP), 0x + 64 hex (Ethereum/Polygon/BSC/Base/Arbitrum/Ethereum Classic), or an ~88-character Base58 signature (Solana). Block-explorer URLs are also accepted — the hash is extracted automatically. Users very often paste an exchange reference ID by mistake (e.g. Kraken's XXXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXXX order refs, Coinbase's UUID transaction IDs) — these are NOT on-chain hashes and will be rejected with error invalid_transaction_hash_format; when that happens, relay the error's assistant_guidance to the user (it explains where in their exchange/wallet to find the real hash, and that exchange-hosted funds must first move to a self-custody wallet). ASSET DETECTION: you do NOT need to know which asset the user sent. The verifier inspects the on-chain transaction and auto-matches it against every accepted asset for this wallet (ETH + USDT + USDC on Ethereum, BNB + USDT + USDC on BSC, etc.). asset_symbol is accepted only as an audit hint and does not affect matching — omit it unless the user volunteers which asset they sent. WHEN THE USER PROVIDES A TX HASH: 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 transaction-hash 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 hash 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
`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.
`asset_symbol`	No	Optional audit hint — the symbol the user says they sent (e.g. "USDT"). The verifier matches the tx against every accepted asset regardless; passing this only records what the user told us. You can safely omit this.
`transaction_hash`	Yes	The transaction hash of the dust transfer

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	verified \| pending \| failed \| already_verified
`message`	No
`wallet_id`	No
`asset_symbol`	No	Asset the verifier auto-matched the transaction against
`ownership_status`	No	Underlying wallet state — VERIFIED_TRANSACTION \| PENDING_TRANSACTION \| 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": {
+    "asset_symbol": {
+      "description": "Asset the verifier auto-matched the transaction against",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ownership_status": {
+      "description": "Underlying wallet state — VERIFIED_TRANSACTION | PENDING_TRANSACTION | 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 20, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / asset_symbol / description

Previous value: -"Symbol of the asset the user sent — must match one of the entries in the assets array returned by add_wallet / refresh_wallet_verification (e.g. \"ETH\", \"USDT\", \"USDC\", \"BNB\", \"BTC\", \"TRX\"). Required when the wallet offers multiple verification assets. Omit on chains with a single asset (Bitcoin, XRP, Solana). The server resolves the symbol to the correct token contract + decimals for the verification check."New value: +"Optional audit hint — the symbol the user says they sent (e.g. \"USDT\"). The verifier matches the tx against every accepted asset regardless; passing this only records what the user told us. You can safely omit this."

Changed1 schema field changedApr 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / asset_symbol

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Symbol of the asset the user sent — must match one of the entries in the assets array returned by add_wallet / refresh_wallet_verification (e.g. \"ETH\", \"USDT\", \"USDC\", \"BNB\", \"BTC\", \"TRX\"). Required when the wallet offers multiple verification assets. Omit on chains with a single asset (Bitcoin, XRP, Solana). The server resolves the symbol to the correct token contract + decimals for the verification check.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide no positive safety declarations, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the tool does not move funds, the transfer is not a payment, and the verifier auto-matches the on-chain transaction against accepted assets. It stops short of describing side effects like updating verification status, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 but organized with labeled sections (HASH FORMAT, ASSET DETECTION, WHEN THE USER PROVIDES A TX HASH) and front-loads the core purpose. Some repetition exists around error relay and wallet_id lookup, but every section earns its place given the tool's complexity and common failure modes.

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 complexity, three parameters, and rich sibling context, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input formats, error handling, user-facing guidance, asset detection behavior, and the exact lookup workflow when wallet_id is unknown. With an output schema present, the absence of return-value details is acceptable.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: exact hash formats per blockchain, acceptance of block-explorer URLs with automatic extraction, the non-influential nature of asset_symbol, and the rule that wallet_id must be looked up and never shown to the user. This is far beyond a baseline schema-documented description.

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 transaction hash for the dust/test transfer verification method') and differentiates it from verify_wallet_signature as 'the other way to prove ownership'. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: when a Verify Wallet widget is visible, have the user paste the hash there; when no widget is present, call get_wallet_summary first to resolve wallet_id. It also names the alternative verification method and warns against exchange reference IDs, giving clear conditions for rejection.

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.