Skip to main content
Glama
namixai
by namixai

@usenami/signer-mcp

Sign CEX orders from any MCP-aware AI agent — the signing secret never leaves the AWS Nitro Enclave.

signer-mcp is the public face of Usenami Signer. It gives Claude Desktop, Cursor, ElizaOS, and any other MCP-aware client a six-tool surface for trading real CEX/DEX perp accounts (Binance, OKX, Asterdex, KuCoin, Bybit, Hyperliquid) without the signing secret ever entering the agent's process — or yours.

Status: v0 (alpha), invite-based pilot. Venue manifest, attestation, account read, place/cancel order, and a two-leg hedge. ⚠️ Assume orders are real. Which venue and network your orders hit is decided by the policy bound to your token, and neither this page nor list_venues can tell you which — ask whoever issued the token. There is no implicit testnet safety net, so treat every order as mainnet money until you have confirmed otherwise. Read place_order before sending anything.


Why this exists

Every agent framework that touches a CEX today loads the API key into the agent process. That puts the secret on disk, in env vars, in npm packages, in prompt-engineered tool calls, and in your shell history. One prompt injection, one supply-chain compromise, one accidental log line, one curious co-worker — and the key leaks.

Signer takes the opposite approach. The signing key is generated inside an AWS Nitro Enclave attested by AWS itself. The enclave's measurement (PCR0) is published on https://usenami.io/signer/attestations. The MCP server you install here can ask the enclave to sign a specific order — bounded by an explicit policy (per-asset cap, per-period cap, allowed venues) — but it cannot read the key. Neither can the agent, your laptop, your IaC, or our own engineers.

If the agent gets compromised, the worst it can do is place orders inside your policy window. The key itself stays attested.


Related MCP server: Openterms-mcp

Quick start (Claude Desktop)

  1. Get a token. Access is invite-based during the pilot — there is no self-serve signup yet; request access via usenami.io/signer (contact link at the bottom) and your token is provisioned at onboarding, bound to a policy with per-venue caps. No token yet? Steps 2–4 still work: list_venues and get_attestation need no token. Note what each one actually does, because only one of them talks to us: get_attestation fetches a live, NSM-signed document from the gateway, while list_venues answers from a static manifest compiled into this package and makes no network call at all.

  2. Edit claude_desktop_config.json. Path is ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json on macOS.

    {
      "mcpServers": {
        "signer": {
          "command": "npx",
          "args": ["-y", "@usenami/signer-mcp@^0.6.0"],
          "env": {
            "SIGNER_GATEWAY_URL": "https://signer-demo.usenami.io:8443",
            "SIGNER_API_TOKEN": "sk_live_..."
          }
        }
      }
    }

Pin @^0.6.0 — earlier versions do not work out of the box. Every published version up to and including 0.5.0 defaults SIGNER_GATEWAY_URL to https://signer.usenami.io, which 301-redirects every path to the marketing landing page. The network tools then receive HTML and die with Unexpected token '<'. 0.6.0 changed the default to the demo gateway. If you are pasting a config from an older post or cached answer, check this first — the symptom looks like a broken server and is a stale default.

  1. Restart Claude Desktop and look for the 🔌 plug icon. You should see seven tools listed under signer: list_venues, get_attestation, get_verified_price, get_account, place_order, place_hedge, cancel_order. (The list is named rather than counted on purpose — a count in prose goes stale the moment a tool is added, and this one did: it said six until get_verified_price shipped.)

  2. Try the read-only tools first. Ask Claude:

    "List the venues available through Signer, then return the current attestation document."

    No funds at risk — these don't sign anything, and neither needs a token.

  3. Once you have a token and trust the attestation, you can place a first order — knowingly. ⚠️ This signs a real order on the venue your token's policy allows, and you should assume that means mainnet, real money — 0.001 BTC is a real position, not a testnet exercise, unless the person who issued your token told you otherwise. Start with the smallest size your policy allows, and only then:

    "Get my Binance account, then if I have at least $20 of free margin, place a market buy for 0.001 BTC."

If anything looks wrong, the agent can call cancel_order immediately.


Quick start (ElizaOS)

ElizaOS has a native plugin: @usenami/plugin-signer (same gateway contract — a token issued for one works with the other). Prefer it: actions land directly in the agent, plus an attestation provider that keeps the current PCR0 in context.

Alternatively, ElizaOS can reach this MCP server through the generic bridge @elizaos/plugin-mcp over stdio:

npm install @elizaos/plugin-mcp

Then in your character / agent config:

{
  "plugins": ["@elizaos/plugin-mcp"],
  "settings": {
    "mcp": {
      "servers": {
        "signer": {
          "type": "stdio",
          "command": "npx",
          "args": ["-y", "@usenami/signer-mcp@^0.6.0"],
          "env": {
            "SIGNER_GATEWAY_URL": "https://signer-demo.usenami.io:8443",
            "SIGNER_API_TOKEN": "sk_live_..."
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

The agent now exposes the same seven tools (list_venues, get_attestation, get_verified_price, get_account, place_order, place_hedge, cancel_order). Same trust model: the signing key never enters the Eliza process — start the agent on the read-only tools (list_venues / get_attestation) and verify the attestation before letting it place orders. Only get_attestation reaches the gateway; list_venues is served from a static manifest inside the package, so a green list_venues says nothing about whether your gateway is reachable.


Configuration

Environment variables passed via the env block of claude_desktop_config.json (or your client's equivalent):

Variable

Required

Default

Notes

SIGNER_GATEWAY_URL

no

https://signer-demo.usenami.io:8443

The hosted attested demo enclave. Override for self-hosted deployments.

SIGNER_API_TOKEN

yes (for account/order tools)

—

Bearer token provisioned at onboarding (invite-based pilot). list_venues and get_attestation work without one — but only get_attestation contacts the gateway (list_venues is static, see its section below); get_account, place_order, place_hedge, cancel_order require it.

SIGNER_FETCH_TIMEOUT_MS

no

30000

Per-request fetch timeout in ms. Lower for CI / smoke tests; raise on slow links. Must be positive integer.

X402_PRIVATE_KEY

only for get_verified_price

—

Payer key for the x402 gateway: each price query costs one cent in USDC on Base. Without it the tool refuses no_payer_key and spends nothing — it never sends an unpaid request and never falls back to an unverified source. Use a wallet funded for this and nothing else; the ceiling per payment is capped in code.

The MCP server itself stores nothing on disk. Tokens are read from environment on startup and held in memory for the lifetime of the process — kill the agent, the token goes with it.


Tool reference

list_venues

Returns the static manifest of venues this Signer can sign for. Read-only, does not contact the gateway, works without a token. Call this first to discover what's supported.

{
  "venues": [
    {
      "venue": "binance",
      "asset_class": "perp",
      "auth_scheme": "hmac_sha256",
      "status": "live",
      "notes": "..."
    }
  ],
  "count": 7
}

Every entry carries a status: live (the enclave will sign for it) or denied (the enclave refuses by policy — supplying credentials will not change it). Some entries add a network field (bsc, hyperliquid-testnet, …). Read status and notes before choosing a venue.

Supported venues

venue id

status

asset class

auth scheme

symbol example

notes

binance

live

perp

hmac_sha256

BTCUSDT

Binance USD-M futures. ⚠️ Assume mainnet, real funds — the network is set by your token's policy, not by this table

okx

live

perp

hmac_sha256

BTC-USDT-SWAP

OKX perpetual swap. Signs where an OKX key is provisioned; only the gateway you point at can say whether one is. Sizes are in contracts (1 BTC-USDT-SWAP = 0.01 BTC)

asterdex

live

perp

eip712 (bsc)

BTC-USD

Asterdex on-chain perp (BSC)

kucoin

live

perp

hmac_sha256

XBTUSDTM

KuCoin Futures (HMAC + encrypted passphrase); qty in contracts

bybit

live

perp

hmac_sha256

BTCUSDT

Bybit V5 linear (category=linear)

hyperliquid_testnet

live

perp

eip712 (hyperliquid)

BTC

Same enclave code as mainnet, testnet phantom-agent source. Not reachable via place_order/cancel_order in v0

hyperliquid_main

live

perp

eip712 (hyperliquid)

BTC

Order and cancel only — the enclave has no withdrawal or transfer action for this venue. Mainnet carries an unconditional money floor (authority-signed policy + binding per-asset caps by integer asset index), not relaxable by a build flag. Account read is the public clearinghouseState

The agent config block is identical for every venue — point SIGNER_GATEWAY_URL at your Signer and set SIGNER_API_TOKEN. Which venues a given token may trade is bound server-side to that token's policy; list_venues reports the full set the gateway can sign, not your per-token allow-list.

get_attestation

Fetches the Nitro attestation document with a fresh nonce and verifies it locally before returning anything. PCR0/PCR1/PCR2 are read out of the signed bytes.

🔴 Corrected in 0.7.1, and worth saying plainly. Until 0.7.0 this tool sent no nonce and verified nothing — it forwarded the gateway's JSON and described itself as proof that "the code currently signing your orders matches the published source". Neither half held. Without a nonce the document is bound to nothing, so a replay of an older attestation was indistinguishable from a fresh one, and "currently" was unearned. And nothing was checked: not the hardware signature, not the certificate chain, not the root. This is the only surface a third-party agent consumes, which made it the worst place in the product to keep a decorative verifier.

{
  "verified": true,
  "checks": {
    "document_readable": true,
    "nonce_echoed": true,
    "root_pinned": true,
    "chain_verified": true,
    "signature_verified": true
  },
  "pcr0": "...sha384 hex, read from the SIGNED document...",
  "nonce_sent": "...16 random bytes, hex...",
  "nonce_in_document": "...the same value, or the check above is false...",
  "root_sha256": "641a0321...bb5b",
  "pinned_root_sha256": "641a0321...bb5b",
  "proves": ["..."],
  "do_not_trust_for": ["..."],
  "document": { "attestation_doc_b64": "...", "pcr0_sha384": "...", "timestamp_ms": 0 }
}

Every check can fail on its own, and verified is the AND of all five. When anything is false the document is still returned — you may want to look at it — but proves is empty and do_not_trust_for leads with the only honest reading: a document that does not verify is not weaker evidence, it is none.

What the tool cannot establish, stated in its own output rather than left to be inferred: that PCR0 corresponds to the published source (rebuild from the public clone and compare, or ask the on-chain registry), and anything about a past signature — an attestation speaks about the code that answered this request.

root_pinned is the load-bearing one. Whoever answers on SIGNER_GATEWAY_URL can mint their own CA under AWS's own subject name, sign their own chain and a document carrying any measurement they like, and echo the nonce; the other four checks then pass. The pinned fingerprint is what they cannot forge. There is deliberately no environment variable to relax it. To stop taking our word for that one constant, compare it once:

curl -sO https://aws-nitro-enclaves.amazonaws.com/AWS_NitroEnclaves_Root-G1.zip
unzip -p AWS_NitroEnclaves_Root-G1.zip > aws-nitro-root
openssl x509 -in aws-nitro-root -outform DER | shasum -a 256

⚠️ The sample above no longer shows registered_onchain. That field used to be in the gateway's response and is gone — measured against the live endpoint on 12 September, with a nonce the body carries attestation_doc_b64, nonce, pcr0_sha384 and timestamp_ms, and without one the same minus nonce. It would have been the operator's own configuration reported back as if it were a fact about the chain, which is why nothing here depends on it.

⚠️ And the body's nonce echo is worth exactly nothing as a check. The gateway writes it, the same way it writes pcr0_sha384. nonce_echoed compares against the nonce inside the signed document; a client that compared the body field instead would be asking the operator whether the operator was honest.

Read-only, works without a token. Verification needs no network beyond the gateway call and no dependencies — Node's own crypto does the chain and the ES384 signature.

get_verified_price

Reads a Uniswap V3 token price from The Graph and returns it only if four checks pass. Runs entirely outside the enclave — this is a reading, not a signature, and the README says so where a reader might otherwise assume the enclave vouched for the number.

get_verified_price(token_address="0xC02aaA39b223FE8D0A0e5C4F27eAD9083C756Cc2")

the check

what it stops

the indexer signed the exact bytes that arrived

a re-serialised body hashes differently, so a "verified" answer over modified JSON

that signer resolves on chain to an indexer with stake

a signature from nobody in particular

the reading is a usable price

a verified signature over a GraphQL error, or over a zero, is not a price

the price's own age, measured apart from the subgraph head's

a fresh head carrying a year-old price — prices are written in event handlers, so a dead market keeps a dead one under green indexing

On refusal no price is returned, and the answer names both the check that stopped it (stage) and that check's own reason (cause). price_absent_or_zero, graphql_errors and price_stale are three different problems with three different fixes, which is why they are three different words.

Name the token by address when you can. A ticker is not a key in this subgraph: asking it for WETH returns several tokens with that name, all of them real. So every match is checked and returned rather than the first one being guessed at. With neither an address nor a ticker, the tool returns the most recently priced tokens, filtered to those that actually carry a price.

It costs money and says so up front: one cent in USDC on Base per query, paid through the x402 gateway, which needs X402_PRIVATE_KEY. Without that key the tool refuses no_payer_key and spends nothing — it does not send an unpaid request, and it does not quietly fall back to an unverified source.

Where the signed headers go

🔴 On get_account, place_order and cancel_order the signed auth headers pass through your client. The gateway returns {method, url, headers}; this package then sends that request to that URL itself. Those headers are what authenticates you to the exchange: the API key travels in them (X-MBX-APIKEY on Binance, OK-ACCESS-KEY on OKX) and on OKX the passphrase travels with it. Only the signing secret stays inside the enclave — that is the claim we make, and it is narrower than "your credentials never leave".

What follows from that, stated plainly rather than left to inference:

  • Anything that can read your process memory, your logs, or your outbound traffic at that moment can read those headers. They are short-lived and scoped to one request, which limits the damage; it does not remove it.

  • There is no host allow-list in this client. It sends to whatever URL the gateway named. A gateway that has been compromised or impersonated could name its own host and collect the key. Pin the gateway you trust (SIGNER_GATEWAY_URL) and verify its attestation — get_attestation exists for this, and the enclave measurement is what tells you which code answered.

place_hedge is the exception and the model for the rest: both legs are signed and both venue calls are fired server-side, so nothing authenticating ever reaches your process. Moving the other three onto that shape is the fix; until it lands, this section is the honest description of what happens today.

get_account

Returns equity, free margin, and open positions for a venue.

{
  "venue": "binance",
  "equity_usd": 145.32,
  "free_margin_usd": 92.10,
  "positions": [
    { "symbol": "BTCUSDT", "qty": 0.002, "entry_price": 67120.5 }
  ],
  "updated_at": "2026-05-31T18:01:11Z"
}

Read-only. Requires SIGNER_API_TOKEN. The signed headers for this call pass through your client — see Where the signed headers go.

place_order

Place a single market or limit order. The enclave signs the payload after checking policy caps, and your client then sends the signed request to the venue — see Where the signed headers go.

Args:

  • venue — one of binance | okx | asterdex | kucoin | bybit | hyperliquid_testnet | hyperliquid_main. ⚠️ v0 has structured order routes for binance | okx only — other venues return a clear error (they expose read-only account access); and check list_venues status first

  • symbol — canonical (BTC, BTCUSDT, BTC/USDT) or venue-native (BTC-USDT-SWAP, XBTUSDTM, …). The client translates to the venue's native format and echoes it back.

  • side — buy | sell

  • qty — always base-asset quantity (e.g. 0.001 for 0.001 BTC). Not USD-notional, not venue contracts. Contract-denominated venues (okx: 1 contract = 0.01 BTC on BTC-USDT-SWAP) are converted automatically; sizes off the venue's contract grid are rejected, never silently rounded.

  • type — market | limit

  • price — required if type=limit, ignored if type=market

  • policy_id — optional override; defaults to the policy bound to your token

The result includes a translation echo — check translation.sent to see the exact venue-native symbol + size that hit the exchange:

{
  "requested": { "symbol": "BTC", "qty": 0.01, "unit": "base_asset" },
  "sent": { "symbol": "BTC-USDT-SWAP", "qty": "1", "unit": "contracts", "ctVal": "0.01" }
}
{
  "venue": "binance",
  "order_id": "...",
  "status": "FILLED",
  "filled_qty": 0.001,
  "avg_fill_price": 67128.9,
  "policy_id": "default",
  "attested_at": "..."
}

Destructive. Requires SIGNER_API_TOKEN. ⚠️ Orders go where your token's policy sends them — there is no implicit testnet routing. On Binance the hosted whether a given gateway signs against mainnet or testnet, and with what caps, is a property of that deployment and of your token's policy — this page cannot tell you, and neither can list_venues. On Hyperliquid the enclave signs both testnet and mainnet, and mainnet additionally requires an authority-signed policy carrying binding per-asset caps — a blob without them is refused at load, unconditionally. Note that neither Hyperliquid venue is reachable through place_order / cancel_order in v0: those carry structured routes for binance and okx only. An earlier revision of this section said "v0 routes Binance/OKX to testnet" — that was wrong, see CHANGELOG 0.6.0.

place_hedge

Places a 2-leg hedge with atomic signing: both legs are signed inside the enclave all-or-nothing (a policy denial on either leg means nothing is even sent), then the gateway fires both venue calls server-side in parallel — the leg gap collapses to the venues' own latency spread and the signed auth headers never transit through your client. 🔴 That last part is true of this tool only: get_account, place_order and cancel_order do transit them, for the reasons in Where the signed headers go. Do not read this sentence as a property of the package. ⚠️ Venue execution is not atomic: the partial and unknown statuses below exist precisely because an exchange can accept one leg and lose or reject the other.

Args:

  • legs — exactly 2, each {venue, symbol, side, qty, type}. v1 constraints: type: "market" only (a resting limit leg would let "executed" hide an unfilled leg — use place_order for limits) and venues limited to binance | okx. Typical hedge: same symbol, opposite sides, equal base-asset qty on two venues.

  • Symbols and qty use the same canonical/base-asset translation as place_order; per-leg translations are echoed back.

Read the result's status before anything else:

  • executed — both legs live.

  • partial — 🔴 exactly one leg live: the position is NAKED. Repair by closing the live leg or re-placing the rejected one. Never re-place a leg whose outcome is unknown.

  • unknown — 🔴 a leg's receipt was lost (timeout / venue 5xx) — that order may be live. Do NOT retry place_hedge; reconcile first via get_account on both venues.

  • failed — both legs definitively rejected, nothing live, safe to fix and retry.

Destructive (moves real positions on two venues at once). Requires SIGNER_API_TOKEN. Gateways older than the /hedge endpoint return a clear "use two place_order calls" error.

cancel_order

Cancels an outstanding order by its venue order id. Idempotent — cancelling an already-filled or non-existent order returns ok: false with a venue reason instead of erroring.

Available for binance | okx in v0 — other venues have no structured cancel route yet and return a clear error (same limitation as place_order). The signed headers for this call pass through your client — see Where the signed headers go.

Args:

  • venue — binance | okx

  • order_id — the venue id returned by place_order

  • symbol — required (canonical BTC or venue-native; translated exactly like place_order) — both venues' REST cancel routes need it alongside order_id

Requires SIGNER_API_TOKEN.


Verifying the attestation

A trustworthy Signer is one whose enclave measurement matches a build you can audit. The workflow:

  1. Call get_attestation. Check verified is true and read pcr0 — the tool has already taken it out of the signed document, checked the nonce it just sent, walked the certificate chain and compared the root against the pinned fingerprint. If verified is false, stop here: checks names which one failed.

  2. Ask the chain, which is not ours to edit. Call isPCR0Active(pcr0) on 0x38b42eED740b0fDeb211bBDf773F2238cAEec240 (Base). It returns two values and both decide: whether that measurement is active, and the address of the owner who registered it. Read what it answers rather than looking for a particular answer — the registry keeps one active measurement per owner, so which of our lanes holds it moves over time.

  3. Find the same measurement in the tag table of docs/REPRODUCIBLE-BUILD.md. Tags there are named pcr0-<first eight hex of the measurement> and each row names the commit it was cut from and the lane it was cut for.

  4. Rebuild the EIF from that commit and compare the number you get against the one you started from: VERIFY-SIGNER-YOURSELF. This is the step that needs nothing from us at all.

Stop and do not trade if any of these is true — and the first one is easy to miss:

  • the registry names an owner you do not recognise. A measurement can be active and registered by somebody else entirely; "active" alone is not a pass, and an owner check that only happens in your head is not a check.

  • the registry says that measurement is not active;

  • the tag table does not name your measurement;

  • your own rebuild produces a different number.

Open an issue in any of those cases.

🔴 Why this no longer sends you to our page first. The page at usenami.io/signer/attestations reads its live value from the public demo gateway — checked: the page's own markup calls signer-demo.usenami.io:8443/attestation. That is not necessarily the box your MCP server talks to. When two of our boxes run the same measurement, comparing one against the other looks like verification and proves nothing: you would be checking a gateway against a gateway, both of them ours.

That is not hypothetical today. The tag table linked above lists three measurements, two of them retired, and records production and the public demo as sharing one measurement since 2026-09-11 — so right now the comparison happens to agree, which is exactly when a hollow check is hardest to notice.

The page is still worth reading: it carries the registry address and the rebuild recipe. But the three things that can contradict us — the chain, the tag table, and your own build — are the ones that decide, and not one of them is a box we operate.


What v0 deliberately does NOT do

v0 keeps the surface deliberately tight:

  • No multi-tenant: one account per venue per token.

  • No UPL editing UI: policies are set out-of-band on usenami.io/signer.

  • No WebSocket / streaming tools — REST only.

  • No cross-venue routing (place_order takes one venue; the only multi-venue tool is the fixed 2-leg place_hedge).

  • No leverage configuration (set_leverage) — uses account defaults.

  • No withdrawals / transfers (closest is cancel_order).

  • No TWAP / iceberg — single-shot orders only.

  • stdio transport only — no SSE or remote HTTP.

If you need any of the above, file an issue describing the use case. v0 keeps the surface tight on purpose.


Development

# install deps
npm install

# typecheck + build
npm run build

# run from source against the hosted demo enclave
SIGNER_GATEWAY_URL=https://signer-demo.usenami.io:8443 \
SIGNER_API_TOKEN=sk_test_... \
npm run dev

The transport is stdio; you'll need an MCP-aware client to actually exercise the tools. The Anthropic mcp-inspector is the fastest way to poke at it locally.


License

MIT. See LICENSE.

Available Tools

5 tools
cancel_orderA
Idempotent

Cancel an outstanding order by its venue order_id. Signed inside the enclave just like place_order. Returns the cancellation receipt from the venue. Idempotent: cancelling a non-existent / already-filled order returns ok=false with a reason from the venue.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
venueYesVenue identifier. Must match an entry returned by list_venues — any other value will be rejected by the gateway.
order_idYesVenue-native order identifier returned by place_order.
symbolNoVenue-native symbol — REQUIRED for binance + okx cancels (their REST APIs need the symbol on the cancel route). Optional for venues that derive it from order_id alone.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains the return value (cancellation receipt), confirms idempotency behavior with ok=false and venue reason, and notes the enclave signing. These details add value over the idempotentHint annotation.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing context, and explaining idempotency. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description explains return value (cancellation receipt) and idempotent behavior, which is appropriate for a tool without an output schema. However, it does not detail the receipt's structure, which might be needed for full completeness.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description significantly enriches parameter understanding: it links venue to list_venues, order_id to place_order, and clarifies symbol requirement per venue. This goes well beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 tool cancels an outstanding order by its venue order_id, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_order and get_account.

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 provides usage context by mentioning 'Signed inside the enclave just like place_order' and describes idempotent behavior including handling of non-existent orders. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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

get_accountA
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return equity, free margin, and open positions for a venue. Read-only (does not sign anything that mutates state). Use BEFORE place_order to confirm the account has margin. Requires SIGNER_API_TOKEN.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
venueYesVenue identifier. Must match an entry returned by list_venues — any other value will be rejected by the gateway.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'does not sign anything that mutates state' and 'Requires SIGNER_API_TOKEN', which provide extra behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage context. No fluff, every sentence earns its place. Under 30 words.

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 single parameter and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and auth. Missing details about return format could be improved, but overall sufficient for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'venue' parameter (enum, must match list_venues). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Return equity, free margin, and open positions for a venue.' The verb 'return' and resource 'account snapshot' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like place_order or list_venues.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use BEFORE place_order to confirm the account has margin.' Provides clear context and a specific use case. Also mentions read-only and auth requirement.

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

get_attestationA
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the Signer enclave's AWS Nitro attestation document (PCR0, PCR1, PCR2 measurements + AWS-issued signature). This proves the code currently signing your orders matches the published source. The enclave's signing key NEVER leaves attested code. Verify the PCR0 against https://usenami.io/signer/attestations before trusting any place_order.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that the signing key never leaves attested code, and that the attestation proves code matches published source. It does not contradict any annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states what is returned, second sentence explains significance and provides verification instructions. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no waste.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly states the contents (PCR0, PCR1, PCR2 measurements + signature), explains the trust chain, and provides a verification URL. For a parameterless tool, this is 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info but is not needed. It effectively describes what the returned document contains.

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 that the tool returns the AWS Nitro attestation document with specific PCR measurements and signature. It explains the purpose in the context of proving code integrity for signing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_order or place_order.

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 advises to use this tool before trusting place_order and provides a verification step using a URL. While it gives good context for when to use, it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, though none seem needed.

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

list_venuesA
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the venues this Signer can sign trades for. Returns the venue id, asset class (perp / spot / margin), and auth scheme (hmac / eip712 / ed25519). Read-only static manifest — does NOT need the Signer gateway to be reachable. Call this first to discover what's signable.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds context: 'Read-only static manifest — does NOT need the Signer gateway to be reachable.' This provides useful behavioral insight beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose and key differentiators. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage context. It mentions the returned fields, which is sufficient even without a structured output schema.

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?

The tool has zero parameters (100% schema coverage by default), so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate as none exist.

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 tool lists venues the Signer can sign trades for, specifies the output fields (venue id, asset class, auth scheme), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's a read-only static manifest that doesn't need the Signer gateway to be reachable.

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Call this first to discover what's signable' and notes the tool doesn't require the Signer gateway, implying safe usage even if gateway is down. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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

place_orderA
Destructive

Place a single order on the named venue. The Signer enclave will sign the venue-native payload using a key that has never been exported. Policy enforced server-side: orders that exceed per-asset caps are rejected by the enclave before signing. Returns the venue's order_id on success. Side effect: real or testnet trade depending on venue env.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
venueYesVenue identifier. Must match an entry returned by list_venues — any other value will be rejected by the gateway.
symbolYesVenue-native trading symbol. Examples: BTCUSDT (binance, bybit), BTC-USDT-SWAP (okx), BTC-USD (asterdex), XBTUSDTM (kucoin futures), BTC (hyperliquid_main). Case-sensitive.
sideYesbuy = long open / short close; sell = short open / long close.
qtyYesOrder quantity in base asset (e.g. BTC), NOT in USD-notional. Some venues require a minimum (Binance: 0.001 BTC). Refer to venue docs.
typeYesmarket = immediate fill at venue best; limit = resting order at `price`.
priceNoLimit price in quote asset. Required for type=limit, ignored for type=market.
policy_idNoOptional policy id override. If omitted, the gateway uses the default policy bound to the provided SIGNER_API_TOKEN.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the Signer enclave signs the payload with a never-exported key, policy enforcement, and the side effect of real or testnet trade. No contradictions.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers purpose, key behaviors, and parameter nuances. Could mention rate limits or error handling, but overall complete enough for a trading tool.

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 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema, such as examples for symbols, side definitions (long/short), quantity base asset, and policy_id override guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Place') and resource ('a single order on the named venue'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like cancel_order, list_venues, get_account, and get_attestation.

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 explains when the tool can be used (single order) and mentions policy enforcement and side effects (real/testnet trade). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 5 tool updatesv0.2.0
    • First observedcancel_order
    • First observedget_account
    • First observedget_attestation
    • First observedlist_venues
    • First observedplace_order

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Scored across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: placing orders, canceling orders, checking account state, verifying enclave attestation, and listing venues. No two tools could be confused for the same operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., cancel_order, get_account, list_venues) using snake_case, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a signing service. Each tool covers a necessary aspect: order lifecycle (place/cancel), account info, venue discovery, and attestation verification.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow (place and cancel orders) is covered, along with auxiliary tools for account and venue info. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit order status retrieval tool, though get_account provides some position info.

Maintenance

ActivityActive
ResponsivenessResponsive

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    Not graded
    maintenance
    Provides secure, policy-controlled wallet infrastructure for AI agents to autonomously manage XRP Ledger wallets and sign transactions. It features a tiered security model with encrypted key storage, a declarative policy engine, and full audit trails for compliance.
    -
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Cryptographic proof of consent for AI agents. Sign before you act. Policy engine enforces spending caps, action whitelists, and escalation rules. Independently verifiable by anyone.
    10
    2
    Apache 2.0
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    AI-native cryptocurrency exchange built for autonomous agents. Register, deposit USDC, select a strategy, and trade 8 crypto pairs (BTC, ETH, SOL + more) programmatically — no KYC required. Includes sandbox with 10,000 virtual USDC for testing.
    -