Kellian

Prepare a batch of signable trade intents (max 20 items)

kellian_prepare_trades_batch

Prepare up to 20 signable trade intents for the same agent wallet. Sign each signPayload.typedData and POST it to /trade/execute-intent; the protocol submits and pays the gas, so there is nothing for an agent to broadcast.

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": {
      "walletAddress": "<walletAddress>",
      "items": "<items>",
      "idempotencyKey": "<idempotencyKey>"
    },
    "name": "kellian_prepare_trades_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	Yes
`proofNonce`	No	Required single-use nonce for the wallet proof. Fetch from POST /api/auth/nonce; consumed on verification so the proof cannot be replayed.
`walletAddress`	Yes	Wallet that will sign every prepared intent
`idempotencyKey`	Yes	Required write-safety key; reuse it unchanged when retrying this batch
`walletSignature`	No	Action-bound wallet proof. Sign the canonical 'problee-mcp-auth:…' challenge (binds agent, apiKey, tool, scope, chain, resource, payloadHash, nonce, timestamp).
`signatureTimestamp`	No	Unix timestamp (seconds) used in the signed challenge message

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Adds genuine context beyond the annotations by disclosing that the protocol submits and pays gas, so no broadcast step is needed — a meaningful behavioral fact for an openWorld, non-readOnly tool. However, it is silent on the wallet-proof requirements (proofNonce, walletSignature), retry semantics, and what happens if only some of the 20 items fail. Given annotations already declare the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler: the batching scope and cap come first, then the exact next action. Nothing is repeated from the schema and every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool returns an output schema, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the mint-then-execute handoff is spelled out. What is missing is behavior for a batched mutation: partial-failure handling, auth/proof prerequisites, and ordering or atomicity guarantees across the 20 items.

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 83%, so the schema already carries the parameter burden in depth (side vs direction, WeiString units, closePercent vs amount exclusivity). The description adds only two facts — the 20-item cap and that all items share one walletAddress — which is marginal but consistent. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Prepare up to 20 signable trade intents") scoped to a single agent wallet, which cleanly separates it from the single-trade sibling kellian_prepare_trade and from kellian_execute_trade_intent. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear downstream context: sign each signPayload.typedData and POST to /trade/execute-intent, making the prepare-then-execute workflow unambiguous. It does not state when to prefer this over kellian_prepare_trade or kellian_batch_place_orders, nor any prerequisite conditions, so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit.

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

All Kellian tools Inspect

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

Need Help?