agent-embassy

Agent ID — Verify

agentid_verify

Idempotent

Use agentid_verify when you want to check an Agent ID's current standing: valid, revoked, expired, or unknown. Every status returns the identical response shape — the Agent ID, expiry, the full identity chain, an inclusion record, and the signed attestation envelope. Unknown IDs report unknown; never an error. 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/verify.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_id`	Yes	The Agent ID string returned at issuance (64 hex characters; case-insensitive). Rate-limited: 30 checks/min per client IP, 429 on exhaustion
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Idempotency key: UUID v4, client-generated, one per logical request. Replaying the same key on this tool returns the original receipt — the action is not re-run, and the first request's receipt wins even if you resend different inputs. Published example keys are rejected. Keys are scoped per tool and per payer account: a key never returns another wallet's receipt.

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: -"Idempotency key: any non-empty string (a UUID is recommended; no format is enforced). Replaying the same key on this tool returns the original receipt — the action is not re-run, and the first request's receipt wins even if you resend different inputs. Keys are scoped per tool: the same key on another tool is unrelated."New value: +"Idempotency key: UUID v4, client-generated, one per logical request. Replaying the same key on this tool returns the original receipt — the action is not re-run, and the first request's receipt wins even if you resend different inputs. Published example keys are rejected. Keys are scoped per tool and per payer account: a key never returns another wallet's receipt."

Changed3 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). Rate-limited: 30 checks/min per client IP, 429 on exhaustion"

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: +"Idempotency key: any non-empty string (a UUID is recommended; no format is enforced). Replaying the same key on this tool returns the original receipt — the action is not re-run, and the first request's receipt wins even if you resend different inputs. Keys are scoped per tool: the same key on another tool is unrelated."

AddedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond those: identical response shape for all statuses, unknown IDs never error, the x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header requirement, the $0.25 cost, and the nuance that replaying an idempotency key returns the original receipt even with different inputs. This significantly exceeds annotation data.

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 a compact paragraph that front-loads purpose and then provides status behavior, payment protocol, and cost. Each sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information. It is slightly dense but no sentence is wasted, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the 100% schema coverage, output schema, and rich annotations, the description fills the remaining gaps: clear purpose, when to use, unknown-ID behavior, and payment/auth details via the x402 header and URL. It does not mention rate limits in prose, but those are in the schema, and the doc link supplements. The description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (agent_id format and rate limit, idempotency_key UUID v4 and scoping rules). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond a general 'POST the tool inputs as JSON,' so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'check an Agent ID's current standing: valid, revoked, expired, or unknown.' It distinguishes from sibling issue/renew/revoke by focusing on verification, and the mention of identity chain, inclusion record, and attestation envelope clearly differentiates it from other check tools like verified_check.

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 explicitly gives the trigger condition: 'Use agentid_verify when you want to check an Agent ID's current standing.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the clear context and paid nature make usage conditions understandable. It could improve by explicitly routing to issue/renew/revoke for other actions.

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.