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

artefact_correspondence_precheck

FREE pre-check (100/day per wallet; pass caller): input validation and assessability only, with the NOT-ASSESSABLE list named. No grading, no grade.

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>",
      "transcript": "<transcript>",
      "report": "<report>"
    },
    "name": "artefact_correspondence_precheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`caller`	Yes	Solana base58 wallet of the operator; keys the free allowance (100/day per wallet).
`report`	Yes	The report's typed claims: {claims_a: [...], claims_b: [...]}.
`evidence`	No	The evidence artefact the Class B completion claims are graded against.
`transcript`	Yes	The run transcript artefact: {format: letta-af \| anthropic-messages \| run-transcript-jsonl, content: ...}.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavior: cost is free, quota is 100/day keyed to the caller wallet, scope is limited to validation and assessability, and the response includes a named NOT-ASSESSABLE list. It leaves gaps around whether anything is persisted or charged past the quota, but the cost/quota/output-scope disclosures are substantive beyond what a bare name implies.

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 dense sentence with the most decision-relevant fact ('FREE') front-loaded, followed by quota, scope, and the explicit exclusion of grading. No filler, though the parenthetical '(100/day per wallet; pass caller)' is compressed to the point of mild ambiguity about what 'pass caller' means operationally.

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?

For a four-parameter validation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers cost, quota, scope, and the shape of the negative-case output — enough for an agent to call it correctly. It stops short of explaining the optional evidence artifact's role or the next step after a pass, which keeps it from a 5.

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 four parameters are already documented, and the only param-adjacent detail in the description (caller keys the 100/day allowance) merely restates the schema's own caller description. The optional evidence parameter and the transcript/report structure are not elaborated on in the description, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 function: a free pre-check that performs input validation and assessability assessment and returns a NOT-ASSESSABLE list, explicitly excluding grading. This distinguishes it reasonably well from artefact_correspondence_check (which grades), though the description never names the sibling tool, so the distinction must be inferred from context.

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 phrase 'FREE pre-check' and 'No grading, no grade' imply this is the cheap gate to run before the grading tool, but the description never says 'run this before artefact_correspondence_check' or what to do when the NOT-ASSESSABLE list is non-empty. The caller/quota requirement is stated, which is useful context, but the when-to-use routing is only implied.

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?