xportalx

verify_agent

Verify a wallet signature (EIP-191) to authenticate an agent. FREE - no payment required.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "message": "<message>",
      "signature": "<signature>",
      "wallet_address": "<wallet_address>"
    },
    "name": "verify_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	The message that was signed
`signature`	Yes	The signature to verify
`wallet_address`	Yes	The wallet address that signed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 31, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided; the description states it is FREE and implies a non-mutating verification action, but it does not disclose return format or guarantees about state changes. Some burden is met but not fully detailed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, cost note appended. No redundant wording.

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?

Simple tool with no output schema; description gives purpose and cost but omits explicit return value or error behavior. Still adequate for selection given low complexity.

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?

All three parameters are described in schema (100% coverage); the description does not add additional parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'verify' plus resource 'wallet signature (EIP-191)' and purpose 'to authenticate an agent'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling financial/transaction tools.

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?

Mentions authentication context and adds 'FREE - no payment required', implying it is a lightweight utility. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, so it provides clear context but no exclusions.

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

All xportalx 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.

Resources

Need Help?