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

settlement_verify

$0.01 USDC on Solana per lookup - the payment buys one signed settlement verification for the one transaction signature you name: the service reads the chain live and returns the verdict (SETTLED-MATCH, SETTLED-MISMATCH with the mismatching field named, NOT-FOUND, PENDING, or FAILED) with the fields as found and an as-of timestamp. The looked-up transaction content is never stored.

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": {
      "signature": "<signature>",
      "expected": "<expected>"
    },
    "name": "settlement_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`expected`	Yes	The expected settlement fields: payTo (wallet), amountUnits (USDC micro-units), and optionally tokenAccount and memo.
`signature`	Yes	The one Solana transaction signature to verify. Read live from the chain at call time; never stored.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the per-call cost and payment rail, that the chain is read live at call time, the full enumerated verdict set (including SETTLED-MISMATCH naming the failing field, plus NOT-FOUND/PENDING/FAILED), the as-of timestamp, and that looked-up content is never stored. It omits how payment is actually settled, failure/refund behavior on NOT-FOUND or PENDING, and any rate limits.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads price and what the payment buys, then enumerates the verdicts. Every clause carries information, though the verdict enumeration could have been split for scanability and the run-on structure makes it slightly harder to parse quickly.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies what an agent most needs: the paid-per-call model, live-read semantics, the possible verdicts, and the timestamp. The main gap is what happens on payment failure or when NOT-FOUND/PENDING is returned, i.e. whether a charge still applies.

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 both signature and expected are already documented, including the nested expected fields. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema: that exactly one signature is consumed per paid lookup, and that mismatches are reported by naming the offending field, which links the verdict to the expected object.

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 payment buys one signed settlement verification for the one transaction signature you name" gives a concrete verb (verify a settlement) and resource (a Solana transaction), and the verdict list makes the output shape unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby settlement_precheck / settlement_criteria siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Pricing of "$0.01 USDC on Solana per lookup" implies that batching many signatures means many paid calls, which is useful usage context. However there is no statement of when to use this versus settlement_precheck or settlement_criteria, and no guidance on whether a precheck should be run first.

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?