Skip to main content
Glama

helius_get_asset_proof

Retrieve cryptographic proof for a digital asset on Solana blockchain to verify ownership and authenticity.

Instructions

Get proof for a digital asset

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the tool logic by calling Helius RPC's 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)}`);
      }
    }
  • JSON schema defining the input for the tool (requires 'id' string).
    {
      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)
    Maps the tool name to its handler function in the global handlers dictionary.
    "helius_get_asset_proof": helius.getAssetProofHandler,
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get proof' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and expected results, making it insufficient for a tool that likely interacts with digital assets in a blockchain context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'id' undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'id' represents (e.g., asset ID, transaction ID) or its format. This fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the parameter semantics unclear.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Get proof for a digital asset' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('proof for a digital asset'), but it's vague about what 'proof' entails (e.g., cryptographic proof, ownership proof, transaction proof). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'helius_get_asset' or 'helius_get_asset_batch', which might retrieve asset data rather than proofs.

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. With siblings like 'helius_get_asset' or 'helius_get_assets_by_owner', the description doesn't clarify if this is for verification, auditing, or specific proof types, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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