Kellian

Atomically suspend an old hosted quote generation and place all post-only successors

kellian_replace_quote_set

Destructive

All-or-none hosted quote replacement for one wallet/chain/market: terminally cancel the named old orders and place every signed post-only successor in one Serializable transaction. Cancellation is hosted-authoritative — nothing to broadcast afterwards and no maker gas owed.

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": {
      "marketAddress": "<marketAddress>",
      "orders": "<orders>",
      "walletAddress": "<walletAddress>",
      "idempotencyKey": "<idempotencyKey>",
      "walletSignature": "<walletSignature>",
      "signatureTimestamp": "<signatureTimestamp>",
      "proofNonce": "<proofNonce>"
    },
    "name": "kellian_replace_quote_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`orders`	Yes
`chainId`	No	Compiled protocol release chain ID (Base 8453).
`proofNonce`	Yes	Required single-use nonce for the wallet proof. Fetch from POST /api/auth/nonce; consumed on verification so the proof cannot be replayed.
`marketAddress`	Yes
`walletAddress`	Yes
`idempotencyKey`	Yes
`walletSignature`	Yes	Action-bound wallet proof. Sign the canonical 'problee-mcp-auth:…' challenge (binds agent, apiKey, tool, scope, chain, resource, payloadHash, nonce, timestamp).
`signatureTimestamp`	Yes	Unix timestamp (seconds) used in the signed challenge message
`suspendOrderHashes`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: all-or-none atomicity inside one Serializable transaction, and that cancellation is hosted-authoritative so nothing needs broadcasting and no maker gas is owed. That materially changes how an agent reasons about failure and follow-up. It stops short of describing what happens to the whole set when a single successor is rejected, and does not reconcile the non-idempotent hint with the required idempotencyKey.

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, zero filler, with the all-or-none guarantee and the scope front-loaded before the cancellation semantics. Every clause carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the atomicity statement covers the core risk. For a destructive, multi-order, signature-gated mutation the description is still thin: it never identifies which parameter supplies the orders to suspend, never notes the orderSignature-omitted signing-payload flow, and never states what the caller sees on partial failure.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 44% across 9 parameters, so the description carries a real compensation burden and adds none. Most notably the 'named old orders' are the suspendOrderHashes array, which has no schema description at all and is never named in the prose, leaving the agent to guess how orders to cancel are identified. Nothing is said about idempotencyKey, proofNonce, walletSignature, or the per-order postOnly/signature requirements.

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 pair (terminally cancel old orders + place signed post-only successors) on a specific resource (a hosted quote set) with explicit scope (one wallet/chain/market). The singular 'one wallet/chain/market' scope implicitly separates it from the batch sibling, but the description never names that sibling or the plain order-placement tools, so differentiation is inferential 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 usage scenario is implied clearly: when replacing a live quote generation, use this instead of cancel-then-place separately. However there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., versus kellian_batch_replace_quote_sets for multiple quote sets, or kellian_cancel_orders when no successors follow), and no stated prerequisites such as the required wallet proof or the need to fetch a nonce first.

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?