Skip to main content
Glama

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

stream_divergence_compare

$0.05 USDC on Solana per report - the payment buys one comparison of the two artefacts you submitted (streamed capture + reference output) and one signed divergence report: byte-equal or not, both chunk counts and byte lengths, the first-divergence offset or NONE, and every differing span by position and length. The report does not establish which output is correct, nor why they diverged.

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": {
      "streamed_capture": "<streamed_capture>",
      "reference_output": "<reference_output>"
    },
    "name": "stream_divergence_compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reference_outputYesOne artefact: {chunks: [base64 chunk, ...]} - chunk boundaries preserved as submitted; up to 1,024 chunks and 65,536 decoded bytes.
streamed_captureYesOne artefact: {chunks: [base64 chunk, ...]} - chunk boundaries preserved as submitted; up to 1,024 chunks and 65,536 decoded bytes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description usefully discloses the $0.05 USDC Solana charge, that one payment covers one comparison and one signed report, and the report's evidentiary limitations. It does not discuss payment failure, settlement, or report persistence, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences efficiently cover price, scope, output, and limitations with little unnecessary wording. Leading with the price and packing the report fields into one long sentence makes the central purpose slightly less front-loaded than ideal.

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-input paid comparison without an output schema, the description supplies the essential cost and scope and thoroughly enumerates the report contents and non-goals. The main remaining gaps are sibling-workflow routing and details of the signed report's representation or verification.

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%, including the artefact structure, base64 chunks, preserved boundaries, and size limits, so the baseline score applies. The description clarifies how the two artefacts are used but adds no substantial encoding or validation semantics 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 clearly states that the tool compares a streamed capture with reference output and produces a signed divergence report, enumerating the report's contents. It does not explicitly distinguish this comparison operation from the stream_divergence_precheck or stream_divergence_criteria siblings.

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 artefact pairing establishes a clear use case, and the final sentence explicitly rules out using the report to determine correctness or explain why divergence occurred. It does not route agents to the precheck or criteria tools, or name an alternative for correctness and root-cause analysis.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources