Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

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

by com.exchangerebel
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

rail_router_precheck

FREE headline pre-check (100/day per wallet; pass caller). Returns assessability only - whether the artefact carries a readable 402 form; no rail identification 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": {
      "caller": "<caller>",
      "artefact": "<artefact>"
    },
    "name": "rail_router_precheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
callerYesSolana base58 wallet of the operator; keys the free allowance (100/day per wallet).
artefactYesThe one 402 artefact to identify: its status, headers and body in the form received. Processed in memory only, never stored.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses that the check is free, capped at 100 calls per day per wallet, and limited to an assessability result. These are useful cost, quota, and scope behaviors, although the description itself does not state the in-memory/non-storage guarantee or explicitly declare the operation read-only.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads cost and quota, then states the exact result scope and its exclusion. Every clause contributes to selection or invocation, with no repetitive or 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 two-parameter pre-check, the cost, quota, required caller, and output limitation support most selection and invocation decisions, while the schema documents the artefact and memory-only processing. Because there is no output schema, the exact assessability result shape remains unspecified, and the description also omits the next-step sibling.

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 the baseline score of 3 applies. The description reinforces that caller must be passed and connects it to the wallet quota, but adds no artefact structure or formatting guidance 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?

The description states precisely that the tool checks whether an artefact carries a readable 402 form and returns assessability only. Saying that no rail identification is returned helps distinguish it from routing, but no sibling is named and "headline pre-check" is somewhat jargon-heavy.

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?

Calling it a pre-check and explicitly excluding rail identification provides a clear use case and when-not condition. It does not direct agents to rail_router_route for identification or explain the broader pre-check workflow, so alternative-selection guidance remains incomplete.

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