InsumerAPI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Wallet trust profile (signed)

insumer_wallet_trust

Instructions

Generate a signed wallet trust fact profile for an EVM wallet: a curated set of presence checks organized into dimensions (stablecoins, governance, nfts, staking, institutional_stablecoins, tokenized_treasuries, stablecoin_deposits, wrapped_bitcoin, names, account): 155 base checks across 27 chains in 10 dimensions. Optional Solana, XRPL, Bitcoin and Tron wallets add their own dimensions, up to 176 checks across 29 chains in 14 dimensions; optional Stellar and Sui wallets let rows inside existing dimensions evaluate. Dimensions arrive in a fixed order: the base dimensions as listed, then any of solana, xrpl, bitcoin and tron that were switched on, in that order. The account dimension holds two rows per chain on Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism and Polygon: contract code at the wallet address, and an EIP-7702 delegation there; a plain key reads false on both, and which contract is never named. Rows on a chain whose wallet is not supplied stay in the signed profile with evaluated: false. Every check is held or not held (present or not present in the account dimension), never a balance. The signed conditionSetVersion (currently 2026-10-08) names the check list that was run; log it, never reject on it. Returns per-dimension pass/fail counts and an overall summary: no score, no opinion. Designed for AI agent-to-agent trust decisions. Costs 3 credits (6 with proof: 'merkle'). An rpc_failure error (503) means a read did not complete and nothing was signed: retry, and never treat it as a no. Current chain and check counts: https://insumermodel.com/llms.txt

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`proof`	No	Set to 'merkle' for EIP-1186 Merkle storage proofs on EVM token checks (6 credits). Rows whose balance is computed rather than stored (Aave aTokens, BUIDL), NFT/non-EVM rows and the account rows are declined with a reason (an account proof is available from the attest tool's account_code condition); the premium is refunded whenever no proof is delivered.
`wallet`	Yes	EVM wallet address (0x...) to profile
`suiWallet`	No	Sui wallet address (0x + 64 hex). If provided, lets the rows on Sui evaluate. Adds no dimension.
`tronWallet`	No	Tron wallet address (T-prefixed). If provided, adds the Tron dimension.
`xrplWallet`	No	XRPL wallet address (r-address). If provided, adds the XRPL dimension and lets the institutional row on XRPL evaluate.
`solanaWallet`	No	Solana wallet address (base58). If provided, adds the Solana dimension and lets the institutional rows on Solana evaluate.
`bitcoinWallet`	No	Bitcoin address. If provided, adds the Bitcoin dimension (native BTC presence).
`stellarWallet`	No	Stellar wallet address (G-prefixed). If provided, lets the institutional rows on Stellar evaluate (classic trustlines). Adds no dimension.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	true when the API call succeeded
`data`	No	The endpoint's payload: a signed attestation, trust profile, discount, merchant or token records
`keys`	No	JWKS entries (insumer_jwks)
`meta`	No	Response metadata such as version and timestamp
`error`	No	Error details when ok is false
`items`	No	The result when the endpoint returns a JSON array
`message`	No	A plain-text result (insumer_setup), or a message from the API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.2Oct 13, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / proof / description

Previous value: -"Set to 'merkle' for EIP-1186 Merkle storage proofs on EVM token checks (6 credits). Rows whose balance is computed rather than stored (Aave aTokens, BUIDL) and NFT/non-EVM rows are declined with a reason; the premium is refunded whenever no proof is delivered."New value: +"Set to 'merkle' for EIP-1186 Merkle storage proofs on EVM token checks (6 credits). Rows whose balance is computed rather than stored (Aave aTokens, BUIDL), NFT/non-EVM rows and the account rows are declined with a reason (an account proof is available from the attest tool's account_code condition); the premium is refunded whenever no proof is delivered."

Changed12 schema fields changedv1.16.0Oct 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / bitcoinWallet / description

Previous value: -"Bitcoin address. If provided, adds Bitcoin Holdings dimension (native BTC balance check)."New value: +"Bitcoin address. If provided, adds the Bitcoin dimension (native BTC presence)."

addedInput schema / properties / bitcoinWallet / pattern

Added value: +"^(?:[13][1-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z]{25,34}|(?:bc1|BC1)[02-9ac-hj-np-zAC-HJ-NP-Z]{11,87})$"

changedInput schema / properties / proof / description

Previous value: -"Set to 'merkle' for EIP-1186 Merkle storage proofs on stablecoin/governance checks (6 credits)."New value: +"Set to 'merkle' for EIP-1186 Merkle storage proofs on EVM token checks (6 credits). Rows whose balance is computed rather than stored (Aave aTokens, BUIDL) and NFT/non-EVM rows are declined with a reason; the premium is refunded whenever no proof is delivered."

changedInput schema / properties / solanaWallet / description

Previous value: -"Solana wallet address (base58). If provided, adds USDC on Solana check."New value: +"Solana wallet address (base58). If provided, adds the Solana dimension and lets the institutional rows on Solana evaluate."

addedInput schema / properties / solanaWallet / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[1-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z]{32,44}$"
```

addedInput schema / properties / stellarWallet

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Stellar wallet address (G-prefixed). If provided, lets the institutional rows on Stellar evaluate (classic trustlines). Adds no dimension.",
+  "pattern": "^G[A-Z2-7]{55}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / suiWallet

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Sui wallet address (0x + 64 hex). If provided, lets the rows on Sui evaluate. Adds no dimension.",
+  "pattern": "^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{64}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / tronWallet

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Tron wallet address (T-prefixed). If provided, adds the Tron dimension.",
+  "pattern": "^T[1-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z]{33}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / wallet / pattern
```
Added value: +"^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$"
```

changedInput schema / properties / xrplWallet / description

Previous value: -"XRPL wallet address (r-address). If provided, adds RLUSD and USDC on XRPL checks."New value: +"XRPL wallet address (r-address). If provided, adds the XRPL dimension and lets the institutional row on XRPL evaluate."

addedInput schema / properties / xrplWallet / pattern
```
Added value: +"^r[1-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z]{24,34}$"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The endpoint's payload: a signed attestation, trust profile, discount, merchant or token records"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error details when ok is false"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "description": "The result when the endpoint returns a JSON array",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "keys": {
+      "description": "JWKS entries (insumer_jwks)",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "A plain-text result (insumer_setup), or a message from the API"
+    },
+    "meta": {
+      "description": "Response metadata such as version and timestamp"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "true when the API call succeeded",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.1.0Apr 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Far exceeds the annotations: discloses cost (3 credits, 6 with proof), the rpc_failure 503 semantics ('nothing was signed... never treat it as a no'), conditionSetVersion handling ('log it, never reject on it'), fixed dimension ordering, and that rows on unsupplied wallets remain with evaluated:false. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with a credit-charging, signing operation.

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?

Long, but the purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and each subsequent sentence carries non-obvious operational facts (ordering, costs, error semantics). The dimension enumeration and chain/check counts are somewhat list-heavy and could be trimmed given a canonical llms.txt link is supplied.

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?

For an 8-parameter, credit-charging, signing tool this covers everything an agent needs: cost, failure/retry semantics, version field handling, partial-evaluation behavior, and the distinction between 'no score, no opinion' output. Completeness is high even though an output schema exists.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the fixed arrival order of dimensions (base list, then solana/xrpl/bitcoin/tron) and which wallets add dimensions vs. only enable row evaluation. It does not add per-parameter syntax the schema lacks, so it is not a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Generate a signed wallet trust fact profile for an EVM wallet') and immediately scopes what the profile contains (155 base checks across 27 chains in 10 dimensions). The EVM-singular scope cleanly distinguishes it from batch_wallet_trust and from the attest sibling, both visible in the sibling list.

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 clear deployment context ('Designed for AI agent-to-agent trust decisions') and states precisely when the optional per-chain wallet params change behavior (add a dimension vs. merely let rows evaluate). It stops short of naming when to prefer batch_wallet_trust or insumer_attest, so no explicit alternative routing.

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