Skip to main content
Glama
nohosa001-pixel

security-gate-x402

by nohosa001-pixel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_onchain_security_attestation

Generates EIP-712 cryptographic signatures and raw Solidity calldata (v, r, s) for smart contract-level on-chain agent guardrails across Polygon, Base, and Arbitrum networks.

Instructions

Generates EIP-712 cryptographic signatures and raw Solidity calldata (v, r, s) for smart contract-level on-chain agent guardrails across Polygon, Base, and Arbitrum networks. Use this tool ONLY when preparing on-chain smart contract transactions that require cryptographic EIP-712 safety proof (v, r, s calldata) for an on-chain Safe or Guard contract. Do NOT use this tool for off-chain safety screening or general text auditing; use inspect_agent_output instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
action_payloadYesThe raw action payload, transaction calldata, or agent decision string to attest cryptographically on-chain.transfer(0x71C637024457bb52792e55106d80a3E70d8a5944, 100000000)
risk_score_maxNoMaximum acceptable risk score threshold between 0.0 (strict) and 1.0 (permissive).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.0.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / action_payload / default
      Added value: +"transfer(0x71C637024457bb52792e55106d80a3E70d8a5944, 100000000)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / action_payload / description
      Previous value: -"The raw action payload, transaction data, or agent decision string to attest."New value: +"The raw action payload, transaction calldata, or agent decision string to attest cryptographically on-chain."
    • addedInput schema / properties / action_payload / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "transfer(0x71C637024457bb52792e55106d80a3E70d8a5944, 100000000)",
+  "rebalance_portfolio(0xDefiVault, 5000)"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / risk_score_max / description
      Previous value: -"Maximum acceptable risk score threshold (0.0 to 1.0)."New value: +"Maximum acceptable risk score threshold between 0.0 (strict) and 1.0 (permissive)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / risk_score_max / examples
      Added value: +[
+  0.1,
+  0.2,
+  0.5
+]
  2. Addedv1.0.4

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the concrete return artifacts (v, r, s calldata and EIP-712 signatures), the target chains (Polygon, Base, Arbitrum), and the required execution context (Safe or Guard contract). It stops short of covering signing/key-handling expectations or determinism, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight clauses: purpose/artifacts first, then the positive usage constraint, then the negative constraint with the named alternative. No filler, and the routing information is front-loaded after the primary identity statement.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies purpose, scope, target networks, output form, and sibling routing. Remaining gaps (signing credentials, failure modes for exceeding risk_score_max) are minor but real.

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% and both parameters (action_payload, risk_score_max) are fully documented in the schema with defaults and examples. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning (e.g., how risk_score_max is evaluated or what happens on rejection), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Generates) and precise artifacts (EIP-712 signatures, raw Solidity calldata v/r/s) plus a scope (smart contract-level on-chain agent guardrails) and supported networks. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like inspect_agent_output and verify_agent_output.

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 encodes when to use ('ONLY when preparing on-chain smart contract transactions that require EIP-712 safety proof for an on-chain Safe or Guard contract') and when not to use it, naming the alternative ('use `inspect_agent_output` instead'). Preconditions and the excluded off-chain/text-audit cases are stated directly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools