Kellian

Relay a signed collateral permit so the agent pays no gas

kellian_trading_setup_permit

Grant an allowance by signature. Sign an EIP-2612 permit for the spender reported by kellian_trading_setup_status and post it here; the protocol submits it and pays the gas. purpose "trading" approves the router so you can trade. Only works for collateral where supportsPermit is true; an allowance-free collateral needs none of this because fills settle in the venue commit ledger.

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": {
      "collateralToken": "<collateralToken>",
      "value": "<value>",
      "deadline": "<deadline>",
      "signature": "<signature>",
      "idempotencyKey": "<idempotencyKey>"
    },
    "name": "kellian_trading_setup_permit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`value`	Yes	Non-negative integer amount in the token's smallest unit (wei for ETH-family tokens; the play-money token PM uses 6). Always read the decimals from the token or market metadata rather than assuming them. Serialized as a base-10 string to avoid JS number precision loss.
`chainId`	No	Compiled protocol release chain ID (Base 8453).
`purpose`	No	What the allowance is for. "trading" lets the release router pull collateral for trades; "challenge_bond" lets the resolution escrow pull the bond when you challenge a resolution. You name the purpose, never the spender — the endpoint resolves that from configuration, so a signature can never approve somewhere you did not intend.
`deadline`	Yes
`signature`	Yes
`idempotencyKey`	Yes	Stable retry key. Reuse only with byte-equivalent tool arguments.
`collateralToken`	Yes	Checksummed or lowercase 20-byte EVM address (0x + 40 hex).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive, open-world write; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — the protocol pays the gas so the agent submits no transaction, and the spender is resolved from configuration by purpose so a signature cannot approve an unintended address. It stays silent on what happens to a duplicate or rejected permit, which is where the remaining gap lies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the gasless benefit, then the purpose semantics and the eligibility caveat. The phrasing is dense but every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, so what remains is behavior — which it covers well: eligibility check, spender resolution, gas payment, and purpose branching. Missing only error/retry guidance around deadline or signature mismatch.

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 coverage is 71%, so the schema already documents value, purpose, collateralToken, chainId and idempotencyKey. The description reinforces the purpose-to-spender mapping but adds nothing about deadline or signature (both undescribed in the schema) or about how value relates to the permit amount. That is the baseline-plus level, not compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

The description names a specific action and resource: sign an EIP-2612 permit for a spender and post it here for gasless submission. It also ties itself to the sibling kellian_trading_setup_status that reports the spender, so an agent can place it precisely in the setup flow rather than confusing it with approval or trade tools.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use signals (purpose "trading" approves the router so you can trade) and an explicit when-not: collateral with supportsPermit false needs none of this because fills settle in the venue commit ledger. It does not spell out the ordering relative to kellian_prepare_trade or the challenge_bond path's follow-up, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?