@gblin-protocol/mcp-server

verify_risk_attestation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a GBLIN Risk Attestation before trusting a peer's market-risk claim: confirms integrity, signer, expiry, and current on-chain regime drift.

Instructions

Verify a GBLIN Risk Attestation — the object returned by GBLIN's /api/x402/attestation, or a proof-of-diligence a peer agent attached to its action. FREE, no payment. Runs four checks: (1) INTEGRITY — recomputes the EIP-712 attestation_id and detects tampering; (2) AUTHENTICITY — if a signature is present, recovers the signer and checks it is GBLIN's published attestor; (3) FRESHNESS — whether it expired (10-minute TTL), using on-chain time; (4) LIVE DRIFT — compares the attested regime to the CURRENT on-chain regime and flags if it changed. Use before you trust any counterparty/peer that claims it 'checked market risk via GBLIN'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`attestation`	Yes	The full attestation object from /api/x402/attestation (must include `eip712`; `attestation_id`, `signature`, `attestor` are used when present). A JSON string of that object is also accepted.
`expected_attestor`	No	Optional 0x address to check the signature against. Defaults to the GBLIN attestor address baked into this MCP build (GBLIN_ATTESTOR_ADDRESS env).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`live`	No
`valid`	Yes	True only if every check passed.
`checks`	Yes	Each check by name, with its result.
`source`	No
`attested`	No
`guidance`	No
`recomputed_attestation_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.1.5Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the burden is low, yet the description still adds substantial behavior: it is FREE with no payment, and it enumerates the four concrete checks (EIP-712 recomputation, signer recovery, 10-minute TTL against on-chain time, live regime drift). This tells the agent exactly what the call proves and what failure modes it detects.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource, and the 'FREE' qualifier, then a numbered breakdown of the four checks plus a use-case sentence. Dense and largely waste-free, though the enumerated checks make it longer than strictly necessary.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return formatting need not be described, and the description covers cost, the four verification dimensions, and the trust decision it supports. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the eip712 requirement and expected_attestor defaulting to GBLIN_ATTESTOR_ADDRESS). The description adds only a slight note that the attestor is 'GBLIN's published attestor', so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (verify a GBLIN Risk Attestation) and scopes exactly which objects qualify: the /api/x402/attestation output or a peer's proof-of-diligence. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like verify_gblin_authorization because the resource being verified is named precisely.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use before you trust any counterparty/peer that claims it checked market risk via GBLIN.' That is a clear contextual trigger, but no when-not condition or named alternative tool is offered.

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