Skip to main content
Glama

azeth_prove_reputation

Prove net USD payment relationship between two L2 accounts on Ethereum L1 using storage proofs. Build and simulate the proof; optionally broadcast the transaction.

Instructions

Prove an L2 net-USD payment relationship on L1 via MPT storage proof against TrustL2Reader.

Use this when: you want L2 (Base Sepolia) payment reputation between two accounts recognized on Ethereum L1 (feeds ReputationModule.getTotalNetPaidUSD cross-chain aggregation). Builds the proof from the current rollup anchor and SIMULATES it. Only submits an L1 transaction when broadcast=true.

Returns: status (simulated | broadcast | already-proven), the proven usdDelta and direction, anchor block, and txHash when broadcast.

Note: broadcast=false (default) is read-only and needs no private key. broadcast=true requires AZETH_PRIVATE_KEY whose EOA holds L1 ETH for gas (plain L1 transaction — permissionless, no guardian/bundler involved). Proof building requires an archive L2 RPC (AZETH_ARCHIVE_RPC_URL_BASE_SEPOLIA).

Example: { "payer": "0x1111…", "payee": "0x2222…", "broadcast": false }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoL2 chain whose reputation to prove. Defaults to AZETH_CHAIN env var or "baseSepolia". Accepts "base", "baseSepolia" (and aliases like "base-sepolia"). Must be an L2 registered on TrustL2Reader.
payeeYesPayee address (counterparty that was paid).
payerYesPayer address (the account whose net USD payments should be recognized on L1).
broadcastNoWhen true, submit the proof transaction on L1 (requires AZETH_PRIVATE_KEY with L1 ETH for gas). Default false = build + simulate only.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: proof building from current rollup anchor, simulation only by default, L1 transaction submission only when broadcast=true, read-only nature of broadcast=false, need for AZETH_PRIVATE_KEY and L1 ETH for broadcast, and requirement of an archive L2 RPC. This is highly transparent.

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 well-organized: a clear purpose statement, usage condition, behavioral explanation, return fields, note, and example. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, return values, and side effects. It could be improved by mentioning potential error conditions or prerequisites like existence of TrustL2Reader, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the role of 'payer' (the account whose net USD payments are recognized) and explaining the 'broadcast' parameter's effect and prerequisites. The example also provides concrete usage context.

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 clearly states the verb 'prove' and the resource 'L2 net-USD payment relationship on L1 via MPT storage proof against TrustL2Reader'. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on cross-chain reputation proof, a unique capability not shared by other azeth 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?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when: you want L2 (Base Sepolia) payment reputation between two accounts recognized on Ethereum L1...' It also clarifies the two modes (broadcast=false vs true) and their requirements. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where alternative tools would be more appropriate, so a 4 is warranted.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/azeth-protocol/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server