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

context_audit_precheck

FREE pre-check (100/day per wallet; pass caller): input validation and the full per-format assessability disclosure - which of F-1 to F-12 are ASSESSABLE for this record. No factor table, no measurement.

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>",
      "envelope_version": "<envelope_version>",
      "declared_format_id": "<declared_format_id>",
      "record": "<record>"
    },
    "name": "context_audit_precheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`caller`	Yes	Solana base58 wallet of the operator; keys the free allowance (100/day per wallet).
`record`	Yes	The session/context record in the declared format. Processed in memory only; never stored.
`envelope_version`	Yes	Must be "context-composition-envelope/1".
`declared_format_id`	Yes	letta-af \| anthropic-messages \| generic-message-list (the adapter set published in the criteria).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 discloses important behavior: it is free, limited to 100 calls per day per wallet, requires the caller wallet, validates input, and returns assessability information only. It does not describe read-only semantics, error behavior, or response shape in detail, but the quota and scope disclosures are meaningful.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the free pre-check scope and rate limit. The second sentence cleanly states the exclusion, and there is no unnecessary wording.

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 pre-check with a nested record and no output schema, the description covers purpose, quota, validation, assessability output, and exclusions. The schema covers parameter details and in-memory processing, leaving only minor gaps around exact response and error behavior.

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 in the input schema. The description reinforces that caller keys the free allowance and that processing is per declared format, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific pre-check operation: input validation plus full per-format assessability disclosure for factors F-1 to F-12. It also distinguishes this from the full audit by saying there is no factor table and no measurement, so the agent can tell it apart from context_audit_audit and context_audit_criteria.

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?

The description makes the intended use clear: a free pre-check for validation and assessability disclosure, with an explicit exclusion that it does not provide measurement or a factor table. It does not explicitly name context_audit_audit as the alternative for measurement, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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?