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

sdk_safety_precheck

FREE headline pre-check (100/day per wallet; pass caller). Returns validation + record-coverage only - whether the SDK name + version are well-formed and the coverage statement (the pinned record establishes no SDK identifier and no fixed version for any flaw, so a paid check of any well-formed pair grades NOT-IN-RECORD in v1). No per-flaw grading is performed and no verdict is returned. The full signed report is the paid sdk_safety_check 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>",
      "sdk": "<sdk>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "sdk_safety_precheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sdk`	Yes	The x402 SDK name to check against the pinned flaw snapshot.
`caller`	Yes	Solana base58 wallet of the operator; keys the free allowance (100/day per wallet).
`version`	Yes	The SDK version to check (semver: optional leading v, MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, optional -prerelease / +build).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the free allowance (100/day per wallet), required caller identity, exact output scope (validation + coverage only), and the absence of per-flaw grading or verdict. It also explains the pinned record's v1 limitation, so the agent understands why any well-formed pair would be NOT-IN-RECORD.

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?

The lead sentence is front-loaded and the description avoids filler, but the long parenthetical explaining the pinned record is dense and slightly harder to parse. It remains appropriately sized for a tool whose limitations matter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns, and it does: validation plus record-coverage, with no per-flaw grading or verdict. Combined with the named paid alternative and rate-limit context, it gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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 the parameter meanings are already fully documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that sdk and version are checked for well-formedness and that caller keys the free allowance, but adds little syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('FREE headline pre-check') and immediately narrows the output to 'validation + record-coverage only,' explicitly excluding per-flaw grading and verdicts. It also distinguishes this from the paid sibling by naming sdk_safety_check as the source of the full signed report.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It makes the selection condition explicit: use this free pre-check when you need well-formedness validation and coverage status, and use the paid sdk_safety_check when you need the full signed report with grading or a verdict. The 100/day per wallet limit and caller requirement further clarify the free path.

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?