Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Kellian

by app.kellian
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Atomically replace hosted quote sets across up to 10 markets in one write

kellian_batch_replace_quote_sets
Destructive

Replace hosted quote sets across up to 10 markets in one request (one write credit). Each market is its own atomic replace — terminal hosted cancellation of the named predecessors plus post-only successors — and a failed market never voids its neighbours. Total orders across all items must stay within 50.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "items": "<items>",
      "walletAddress": "<walletAddress>",
      "idempotencyKey": "<idempotencyKey>",
      "walletSignature": "<walletSignature>",
      "signatureTimestamp": "<signatureTimestamp>",
      "proofNonce": "<proofNonce>"
    },
    "name": "kellian_batch_replace_quote_sets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
proofNonceYesRequired single-use nonce for the wallet proof. Fetch from POST /api/auth/nonce; consumed on verification so the proof cannot be replayed.
walletAddressYes
idempotencyKeyYes
walletSignatureYesAction-bound wallet proof. Sign the canonical 'problee-mcp-auth:…' challenge (binds agent, apiKey, tool, scope, chain, resource, payloadHash, nonce, timestamp).
signatureTimestampYesUnix timestamp (seconds) used in the signed challenge message

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, yet the description still adds real substance: what is destroyed ('terminal hosted cancellation of the named predecessors'), that successors are post-only, that each market is independently atomic, and that a failed market does not void its neighbours. The one meaningful gap is recovery semantics — with idempotentHint=false, an agent is not told whether re-submitting after a partial failure is safe or would re-cancel.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then atomicity semantics, then the hard limit. Every clause carries operational information and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a destructive batch mutation the description supplies the two things an agent most needs that structured fields cannot: the per-market atomicity/failure-isolation model and the aggregate order ceiling.

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 50% but the nested order properties are heavily documented, and the description contributes a cross-cutting constraint the schema cannot express — that total orders across all items must stay within 50, on top of the per-item maxItems of 50 and maxItems of 10 on items. It says nothing about idempotencyKey or walletAddress semantics, and the aggregate cap lacks a stated error code, so it stops short of full compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('replace hosted quote sets') plus an explicit scope bound ('across up to 10 markets in one request'), which is enough to distinguish it from the singular kellian_replace_quote_set in practice. It never names that sibling directly, so the differentiation is inferred from the plural/batch wording rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'one request (one write credit)' and 'up to 10 markets' framing implies the batch use case, but the description never says when to prefer this over kellian_replace_quote_set or kellian_batch_place_orders, and lists no prerequisites. An agent must infer the routing decision and discover the wallet-proof/signature requirements from the schema alone.

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

All Kellian toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources