Skip to main content
Glama

helius_get_asset_proof

Get cryptographic proof for a digital asset on Solana by providing its asset ID. Verify authenticity and ownership.

Instructions

Get proof for a digital asset

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the asset proof logic via the Helius SDK's rpc.getAssetProof method
    export const getAssetProofHandler = async (input: { id: string }): Promise<ToolResultSchema> => {
      try {
        const proof = await (helius as any as Helius).rpc.getAssetProof({ id: input.id });
        return createSuccessResponse(`Asset proof: ${JSON.stringify(proof, null, 2)}`);
      } catch (error) {
        return createErrorResponse(`Error getting asset proof: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
      }
    }
  • Type definition for the input to getAssetProof
    export type GetAssetProofInput = {
      id: string;
    }
  • Tool registration schema definition for helius_get_asset_proof
    {
      name: 'helius_get_asset_proof',
      description: 'Get proof for a digital asset',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: { type: 'string' }
        },
        required: ['id']
      }
  • src/tools.ts:575-575 (registration)
    Registration mapping the tool name to the handler function
    "helius_get_asset_proof": helius.getAssetProofHandler,
  • Mock implementation of getAssetProof for testing
    getAssetProof: async (params: { id: string }) => {
      return {
        root: "MockRoot",
        proof: ["MockProof1", "MockProof2"],
        node_index: 123,
        leaf: "MockLeaf",
        tree_id: "MockTreeId"
      };
    },
  • Interface definition for the getAssetProof RPC method on HeliusClient
    getAssetProof: (params: { id: string }) => Promise<any>;
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for an AI agent to gauge safety.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence but lacks essential details. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness; here it is under-specified for a tool with no annotations or output schema.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., proof type, format). It fails to provide any contextual completeness, leaving the agent with insufficient information to handle the tool effectively.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has one string parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'id' represents (e.g., asset ID, mint address) nor provide any format hints, leaving the agent to guess.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses verb 'Get' and resource 'proof for a digital asset', indicating a distinct retrieval task. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'helius_get_asset' which retrieves asset details, but does not specify what kind of proof (e.g., merkle proof, ownership proof).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like helius_get_asset or helius_get_asset_batch. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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/dcSpark/mcp-server-helius'

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