ExchangeRebel — pay-per-call APIs for AI agents (x402 on Solana)

argument_check_precheck

FREE pre-check (100/day per wallet; pass caller): validation + assessability only - whether the arguments+schema submission is well-formed and checkable. No verdict, no factors.

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": {
      "caller": "<caller>",
      "arguments": "<arguments>",
      "schema": "<schema>"
    },
    "name": "argument_check_precheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`caller`	Yes	Solana base58 wallet of the operator; keys the free allowance (100/day per wallet).
`schema`	Yes	The tool's JSON Schema (the published subset in the criteria).
`arguments`	Yes	The tool-call arguments blob: a parsed JSON object or the raw JSON text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver unusual value: it discloses the rate limit (100/day per wallet), that the caller wallet keys that allowance, and that no verdict or factors are returned. It omits safety profile, idempotency, and what happens on invalid input or exhausted allowance, so the mutation/side-effect picture remains incomplete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with 'FREE' and the quota, then the scope, then the explicit non-goals. The parenthetical '(100/day per wallet; pass caller)' is dense but every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with a nested schema/arguments pair and no output schema, the description explains what the tool will not return but never describes the shape or semantics of the validation/assessability result. An agent understands the tool's boundary but not what it will actually receive back.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including caller's role in keying the free allowance. The description only echoes the 'pass caller' requirement and adds nothing about accepted argument blob forms or schema subset constraints beyond the schema itself.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it validates and assesses whether an 'arguments+schema submission is well-formed and checkable'. The clause 'No verdict, no factors' implicitly separates it from the verdict-producing sibling (argument_check_check), though no sibling is named explicitly, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

'FREE pre-check (100/day per wallet)' signals it is the cheap, upstream gate before a paid/full check, which is real usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of argument_check_check or argument_check_criteria, and there are no stated exclusions or failure conditions.

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

All ExchangeRebel — pay-per-call APIs for AI agents (x402 on Solana) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?