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

dispute_packet_precheck

FREE headline pre-check (100/day per wallet; pass caller). Returns assessability only - whether the submission is well-formed for packet assembly; no chain read is performed and no packet is returned. The full signed packet is the paid dispute_packet_packet call.

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>",
      "challenge": "<challenge>",
      "paymentResponse": "<paymentResponse>",
      "delivery": "<delivery>"
    },
    "name": "dispute_packet_precheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`caller`	Yes	Solana base58 wallet of the operator; keys the free allowance (100/day per wallet).
`delivery`	Yes	The delivery artefact AS RECEIVED: {status (integer 100-599), body (string) } or {status, bodyHash (64-hex SHA-256)} - exactly one of body / bodyHash. Buyer-submitted evidence, NOT verified by this service.
`challenge`	Yes	The captured 402 challenge object exactly as issued for the paid call being packeted. Processed in memory only, never stored.
`timestamps`	No	Optional timestamps object {challenged_at?, paid_at?, delivered_at?}.
`paymentResponse`	Yes	The PAYMENT-RESPONSE header value from the paid call (base64 JSON string; a raw JSON string or the decoded object are also accepted). Processed in memory only, never stored.
`settlementSignature`	No	Optional explicit settlement reference (the settlement transaction signature). When absent, the header's transaction field is the settlement reference.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the rate limit (100/day per wallet keyed by `caller`), that no chain read occurs, and that no packet is returned — all non-obvious behavioral facts. What it omits is the shape/semantics of the assessability verdict itself (pass/fail, reasons, error modes), which matters for a precheck whose whole output is a verdict.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the cost model and rate limit before the semantic scope and the sibling pointer — good ordering with no filler. The parenthetical '(100/day per wallet; pass caller)' is slightly compressed/cryptic, but it earns its place.

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 six-parameter, nested-object precheck with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, rate limiting, scope, side-effect freedom, and the alternative tool. The remaining gap is the return-value semantics of the assessability result, which the absence of an output schema leaves undocumented anywhere.

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 100%, so all six parameters including the nested objects are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only adds that `caller` keys the free allowance, which is a small but real addition beyond the schema text; nothing is said about the interplay of `delivery`, `challenge`, and `paymentResponse` beyond what the schema states.

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 verb and resource ('headline pre-check' of a dispute packet submission) and immediately scopes it: 'Returns assessability only - whether the submission is well-formed for packet assembly'. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling dispute_packet_packet, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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 a clear usage context (free 100/day per wallet, pass `caller`) and names the alternative paid call that produces the real artifact, which is exactly the routing information needed. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or how it relates to the third sibling dispute_packet_criteria, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?