Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

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

by com.exchangerebel
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

chain_reconcile_precheck

FREE headline pre-check (100/day per wallet; pass caller). Returns assessability only - whether the submitted hop record set is well-formed and chain-readable; no verdict and no cap verdict is returned.

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": {
      "parent": "<parent>",
      "hops": "<hops>"
    },
    "name": "chain_reconcile_precheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hopsYes1 to 20 hop records in chain order: {hop_id, signature (the on-chain payment transaction), expected {payTo, amountUnits, memo?}, capUnits (decimal string; this hop's cap)}. Processed against the chain; hop-set content is never stored beyond the ledger's closed field list.
callerNoSolana base58 wallet of the operator; keys the free allowance (100/day per wallet).
parentYesThe chain parent: {reference (caller-chosen label, echoed never graded), capUnits (decimal string; the ancestor cap over all hops)}.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real weight: it discloses the free-tier quota (100/day per wallet), the fact that the allowance is keyed on caller, and that the output is assessability only with no verdict. It stops short of stating that the call is non-mutating/safe to retry, what happens when the daily quota is exhausted, or what failure modes look like.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the free-tier framing and the quota, followed by the precise output boundary. No filler, though 'FREE headline pre-check' is slightly jargon-heavy compared with the plain rest of the sentence.

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 3-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description compensates well by defining what the response does and does not contain (assessability only, no verdict, no cap verdict). The schema handles all field-level detail, so the only residual gap is the absence of guidance on next steps after a failed pre-check.

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 (hops, caller, parent) are already documented in detail. The description adds only that caller keys the free allowance and that the hop set is the thing being assessed — useful framing but largely duplicative of the schema baseline.

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 operation: a free pre-check that determines whether a submitted hop record set is well-formed and chain-readable. The scope is narrowed by 'Returns assessability only... no verdict and no cap verdict is returned', which implicitly separates it from chain_reconcile_reconcile, but the sibling is never named so the distinction relies on inference.

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?

'pre-check' plus the explicit 'no verdict' disclaimer implies this is a validation step run before the real reconcile, and 'pass caller' hints at the free-tier precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative (chain_reconcile_reconcile or chain_reconcile_criteria), leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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) toolsInspect
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