Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

mcp-server

by io.github.realopengroup
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
asset_symbolNoOptional 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_hashYesThe transaction hash of the dust transfer

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesverified | pending | failed | already_verified
messageNo
wallet_idNo
asset_symbolNoAsset the verifier auto-matched the transaction against
ownership_statusNoUnderlying wallet state — VERIFIED_TRANSACTION | PENDING_TRANSACTION | 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": {
+    "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"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  5. 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."
  6. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds a lot beyond the annotations: it clarifies the tool does not move funds (reconciling the non-destructive intent), discloses that it performs an on-chain lookup (consistent with openWorldHint), explains auto-matching across all accepted assets, and documents the specific failure mode invalid_transaction_hash_format plus the instruction to relay assistant_guidance. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether a failed verification is retryable or whether a successful verification is final/one-shot despite idempotentHint=false.

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-loaded with purpose and organized with clear uppercase section headers (HASH FORMAT, ASSET DETECTION, WHEN THE USER PROVIDES A TX HASH), so an agent can scan to the relevant block. It is long and carries some redundancy — the 'not a payment / does not move funds' point is restated, and the closing 'Do NOT respond with...' sentence is a defensive aside rather than tool semantics.

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?

For a 3-parameter verification tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, wallet_id acquisition path, hash formats, error handling, and asset-matching behavior. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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 genuinely adds meaning: asset_symbol is an audit hint that does not affect matching and should usually be omitted, and transaction_hash accepts block-explorer URLs as well as raw hashes. The concrete hash format rules (64 hex, 0x-prefixed, ~88-char Base58) and the exchange-reference-ID failure mode are substantive additions the schema does not carry.

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 tx hash for the dust/test transfer verification) and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling verify_wallet_signature by framing it as 'the other way to prove ownership of a crypto wallet.' It also names the downstream purpose (balance counting toward a Proof of Funds letter) so the agent understands why it exists.

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?

Gives explicit routing logic: if a Verify Wallet widget is visible, hand the hash to the widget rather than calling the tool; if not, call get_wallet_summary first to resolve wallet_id, then call this tool. It also states the prerequisite (user must have already sent a transfer to the deposit address from add_wallet) and names the alternative verification path.

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