agent-embassy

Agent ID — Renew

agentid_renew

Idempotent

Use agentid_renew to renew an Agent ID: a fresh Agent ID, same identity chain, new expiry; old one retired. revocation_signature over agent-id-revoke: (64-char lowercase ID) — same contract as retiring: EIP-191 personal_sign (envelope required; raw ECDSA fails), 0x 65-byte hex; or ed25519 nacl.sign.detached, 64-byte hex. Signer: principal or Embassy-for-cause. POST the tool inputs as JSON to paid_url with an x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header. See https://docs.cdp.coinbase.com/x402 Paid tool — $0.25, USDC on Base or Arbitrum One. Paid URL: https://aemb.pro/v1/agent-id/renew.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent_id`	Yes	The Agent ID string returned at issuance (64 hex characters; case-insensitive). Unknown IDs are rejected
`validity_days`	No	Days until the renewed Agent ID expires; integer 1-730. Defaults to the Embassy standard when omitted
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional idempotency key: UUID v4 (client-generated; published example keys are rejected). When provided, replaying the same key returns the original receipt instead of re-running the action; when omitted, no dedupe occurs. Keys are scoped per tool and per payer account: the same key on another tool — or from another wallet — is unrelated.
`revocation_signature`	Yes	Hex signature over the exact UTF-8 message agent-id-revoke:<OLD_agent_id> (64-char lowercase ID, no trailing newline) — the signature covers the OLD Agent ID being retired. EIP-191: personal_sign the message STRING (personal_sign envelope REQUIRED — raw ECDSA will not verify), 0x 65-byte hex r\|\|s\|\|v (v=27/28). ed25519: nacl.sign.detached over the message bytes, 64-byte hex. Signer: the principal's on-file revocation key, or the Embassy signer for cause

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`how`	Yes	How to pay: POST the tool inputs as JSON to paid_url with an x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header
`tool`	Yes	Tool name, e.g. verified_check
`asset`	Yes	Settlement asset
`price`	Yes	Exact price, e.g. "$0.15"
`networks`	Yes	EVM CAIP-2 network ids accepted
`paid_url`	Yes	x402-paid HTTPS URL to POST the tool inputs to
`facilitator`	Yes	x402 facilitator
`payment_required`	Yes	Always true: this MCP tool is a payment pointer; the tool itself is monetized via x402.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 26, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / agent_wallet

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Dev mode only: declares the account wallet (string, min 20 chars) when no x402 payment is present. Ignored in live mode — there the wallet is recovered from the verified payment authorization.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description

Previous value: -"Optional idempotency key: any non-empty string (a UUID is recommended; no format is enforced). When provided, replaying the same key returns the original receipt instead of re-running the action; when omitted, no dedupe occurs. Keys are scoped per tool: the same key on another tool is unrelated."New value: +"Optional idempotency key: UUID v4 (client-generated; published example keys are rejected). When provided, replaying the same key returns the original receipt instead of re-running the action; when omitted, no dedupe occurs. Keys are scoped per tool and per payer account: the same key on another tool — or from another wallet — is unrelated."

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / agent_id / description

Added value: +"The Agent ID string returned at issuance (64 hex characters; case-insensitive). Unknown IDs are rejected"

changedInput schema / properties / agent_wallet / description

Previous value: -"dev mode only"New value: +"Dev mode only: declares the account wallet (string, min 20 chars) when no x402 payment is present. Ignored in live mode — there the wallet is recovered from the verified payment authorization."

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description

Added value: +"Optional idempotency key: any non-empty string (a UUID is recommended; no format is enforced). When provided, replaying the same key returns the original receipt instead of re-running the action; when omitted, no dedupe occurs. Keys are scoped per tool: the same key on another tool is unrelated."

addedInput schema / properties / revocation_signature / description

Added value: +"Hex signature over the exact UTF-8 message agent-id-revoke:<OLD_agent_id> (64-char lowercase ID, no trailing newline) — the signature covers the OLD Agent ID being retired. EIP-191: personal_sign the message STRING (personal_sign envelope REQUIRED — raw ECDSA will not verify), 0x 65-byte hex r||s||v (v=27/28). ed25519: nacl.sign.detached over the message bytes, 64-byte hex. Signer: the principal's on-file revocation key, or the Embassy signer for cause"

addedInput schema / properties / validity_days / description

Added value: +"Days until the renewed Agent ID expires; integer 1-730. Defaults to the Embassy standard when omitted"

AddedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate a mutating (readOnlyHint=false) yet idempotent (idempotentHint=true) operation. The description goes far beyond this: it explains that the old ID is retired, specifies the exact signature schemes (EIP-191 vs ed25519) and their failure modes (raw ECDSA fails), requires a payment with a specific header, and details idempotency key semantics. This level of behavioral detail is exceptional and not contradicted by annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but every sentence carries necessary information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then methodically covers signature, payment, and URL. The structure uses semicolons and precise technical details without fluff. It is long because the tool is complex, not because of redundancy.

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 tool with this complexity—multiple signature schemes, payment requirements, idempotency, and a retired-ID side effect—the description covers all operational aspects: the exact message to sign, allowed signers, payment details, URL, idempotency behavior, and validity defaults. Since an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. For revocation_signature, it details the exact message format, signing algorithms, and the requirement for the EIP-191 envelope. For agent_id, it notes case-insensitivity and rejection of unknown IDs. For idempotency_key, it explains scoping rules and that published example keys are rejected. This is a model of parameter enrichment.

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 a precise verb-resource pair ('renew an Agent ID') and immediately differentiates it from siblings by stating what changes (fresh ID, same identity chain, new expiry, old retired). This unambiguously separates it from issue, revoke, and verify.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly states when to use the tool (to renew an Agent ID) and provides extensive context on how to invoke it (payment, signature, URL). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the purpose is so specific that the intended use case is unambiguous. The reference to the same contract as retiring hints at the revoke tool but does not formally contrast them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agent-embassy 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.