Skip to main content
Glama
tersignhq

tersign

Official
by tersignhq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussions(2)Admin
TypeScript
Remote

Verify signed receipt

verify_receipt

Verify an offer-receipt artifact offline by recovering its EIP-712 signature and binding the payload digest. Returns validity, signer, digest; use expectedSigner to catch a mismatched signer.

Instructions

Verify an offer-receipt artifact: recover the EIP-712 signature and confirm the payload digest binds to it. Fully OFFLINE — no network, no API key, no account; verifying someone else's receipt is the intended use. Use this for a receipt (money); use verify_compliance_record for an action record (a non-payment action). Returns { valid, signer, digest } and, when expectedSigner is supplied and does not match, valid:false with the recovered signer so you can see who actually signed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
artifactYesthe receipt artifact exactly as issued: { format, payload, signature }. Pass the object, not a JSON string
expectedSignerNo0x address the receipt MUST be signed by — obtain it out-of-band, never from the artifact. Omit to recover the signer without enforcing it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.7
    • changedInput schema / properties / artifact / description
      Previous value: -"the receipt artifact object {format, payload, signature}"New value: +"the receipt artifact exactly as issued: { format, payload, signature }. Pass the object, not a JSON string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / expectedSigner / description
      Added value: +"0x address the receipt MUST be signed by — obtain it out-of-band, never from the artifact. Omit to recover the signer without enforcing it"
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses fully OFFLINE operation, no network/API key/account requirement, the return shape { valid, signer, digest }, and the specific behavior when expectedSigner mismatches. This exceeds what an agent could infer from the schema alone.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first states the core operation, the second adds offline constraints and the intended user, and the third covers routing and return behavior. No filler or repetition of schema content, and the most critical details are front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides all essential context: purpose, offline behavior, sibling differentiation, expectedSigner guidance, and return values. The nested artifact parameter is sufficiently described in the schema, and description-schema combined coverage leaves no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. It clarifies the expectedSigner behavior in the mismatch case and reinforces the artifact as an object, not a string, which helps avoid common invocation errors.

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 an offer-receipt artifact' with a clear mechanism ('recover the EIP-712 signature and confirm the payload digest binds to it'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling verify_compliance_record by domain, leaving no ambiguity about which tool handles receipts.

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 when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Use this for a receipt (money); use verify_compliance_record for an action record (a non-payment action).' It also emphasizes the offline, no-account nature and that verifying someone else's receipt is the intended use, which guides selection.

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