Skip to main content
Glama
1tylermitchell

Sairen

by 1tylermitchell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

verify_cryptographic_proof

Validate Merkle inclusion proofs, Ed25519/ECDSA signatures, and hash preimage commitments to confirm data integrity and authenticity for autonomous agents.

Instructions

    [Cost: $0.0003 USDC on Base & Solana] Cryptographic proof verifier for autonomous agents.
    Verifies Merkle inclusion proofs, Ed25519/ECDSA signatures, and hash preimage commitments.

    Args:
        proof_type: 'merkle' (Merkle tree audit path), 'signature' (Ed25519/ECDSA), or 'preimage' (hash commitment).
        payload: Dict of parameters:
            - For 'merkle': {'leaf': str, 'proof': list, 'root': str, 'hash_algo': 'sha256'|'sha3_256'|'blake2b'}
            - For 'signature': {'public_key': str, 'signature': str, 'message': str, 'curve': 'ed25519'|'ecdsa-p256'}
            - For 'preimage': {'commitment': str, 'preimage': str, 'salt': Optional[str], 'algorithm': 'sha256'}
        payment_signature: Optional x402 Base/Solana USDC transaction hash (defaults to developer mock key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payloadYes
proof_typeYes
payment_signatureNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a cost ($0.0003 USDC) and notes that payment_signature defaults to a developer mock key, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, nor does it describe error behavior or return format. The cost and mock-key details add value, but the description stops short of fully disclosing what happens on success or failure, warranting a 3.

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 structured and front-loaded, leading with the cost and purpose, then the proof types, then a clear parameter breakdown. It is technically dense but contains no fluff. Slightly verbose due to the detailed payload specification, but every sentence earns its place. The bullet-like formatting aids scanning. A 4 reflects good structure with minor opportunity to tighten wording.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of the tool (three proof types, nested payload, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It thoroughly documents the input structure but says nothing about the return value (e.g., a boolean, a result object, or an error message) or how the agent should interpret success/failure. It also does not mention rate limits or idempotency. This is a significant gap for a verification tool that an agent must invoke confidently, so a 2 is warranted.

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?

The input schema provides zero parameter documentation (coverage 0%), with payload as an untyped object. The description fully compensates by giving a detailed breakdown of the payload structure for each proof_type, including required fields and accepted algorithms. This is exemplary parameter semantics — it adds all the meaning the schema lacks, making the tool usable without guesswork.

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 purpose: 'Cryptographic proof verifier for autonomous agents. Verifies Merkle inclusion proofs, Ed25519/ECDSA signatures, and hash preimage commitments.' This clearly states the verb (verifies) and resource (cryptographic proofs), and it distinguishes the tool from all siblings by specifying the exact proof types it handles. No ambiguity about what it does.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (for cryptographic proof verification) and even breaks down the three proof types (merkle, signature, preimage). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., verify_fact_grounding for non-cryptographic checks). Since the context is unambiguous and the tool is distinct from siblings, it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar, earning a 4.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools