Skip to main content
Glama
assetfare

assetfare

by assetfare
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

assetfare_observe_destination

Idempotent

Verify an already-submitted destination transaction receipt and finalize the legacy v1 workflow record after preparing the action. Confirms on-chain execution without signing or submitting.

Instructions

Verify an already-submitted destination UserOperation receipt and finalize the legacy v1 workflow record. Use only after the caller independently submits assetfare_prepare_destination_action; for v2 output observation use assetfare_v2_session_observe_output instead. Makes a network request and advances session state, but never signs or submits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYesLegacy v1 session UUID returned by assetfare_create_session. Use only with the unversioned legacy workflow; do not pass a v2 session ID.
access_tokenYesSensitive legacy v1 wallet-bound bearer token returned by assetfare_finish_wallet_auth. Use only with unversioned legacy session tools; never log or use it as a v2 session capability.
idempotency_keyYesCaller-generated retry key, 8-128 characters. Reuse it only when retrying the same logical mutation; choose a new key for a new operation. Strict approval_v3 requests additionally enforce its ASCII key pattern.
transaction_hashYesDestination EVM transaction hash already submitted by the caller, formatted as 0x plus 64 hex characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description
      Previous value: -"Caller-generated retry key, 8-128 characters. Reuse it only when retrying the same logical mutation; choose a new key for a new operation."New value: +"Caller-generated retry key, 8-128 characters. Reuse it only when retrying the same logical mutation; choose a new key for a new operation. Strict approval_v3 requests additionally enforce its ASCII key pattern."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses meaningful side effects beyond the annotations: 'Makes a network request and advances session state, but never signs or submits.' This tells an agent exactly what state impact to expect and what side effects are excluded. It is consistent with the annotations, and nothing in the description contradicts them.

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?

Three sentences with distinct jobs: first states purpose, second states usage and alternatives, third states behavioral side effects. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

The definition covers purpose, sequencing, alternatives, side effects, and parameter semantics comprehensively. The only minor gap is that it does not indicate what the verification result or finalization output looks like, and with no output schema present the description could carry that burden more fully.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema already documents formats, sensitivities, and version constraints for all four parameters, so no compensation is needed.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Verify an already-submitted destination UserOperation receipt and finalize the legacy v1 workflow record.' It clearly identifies the operation's scope and workflow version, and explicitly names the sibling tool it is not, assetfare_v2_session_observe_output, making differentiation immediate.

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?

The description gives an explicit sequencing precondition: 'Use only after the caller independently submits assetfare_prepare_destination_action.' It also names the v2 alternative explicitly, and the schema reinforces that the session_id and access_token are legacy-v1-only. This is unambiguous when-to-use guidance.

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