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

subset_reconcile_precheck

FREE pre-check (100/day per wallet; pass caller): validation + F1-F9 assessability + pricing census + the exact step/block/fee quote for the run. No settlement resolution, no report.

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": {
      "format_version": "<format_version>",
      "run_id": "<run_id>",
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "subset_reconcile_precheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`steps`	Yes	The run's step records (tool steps may carry settlement_ref; model steps are unpriced by the chain).
`caller`	No	Solana base58 wallet of the operator; keys the free allowance (100/day per wallet).
`run_id`	Yes	The run key (no ':' characters - the memo form is colon-delimited).
`agent_id`	No
`task_key`	No	The task key the settlements are bound to.
`window_end`	No
`settlements`	No	Settlement records claimed as anchors: tx_signature, chain, run_id, task_key, memo_form, memo_expected, payer/payee wallets, amount_units.
`window_start`	No
`format_version`	Yes	Must be "subset-s-run/1".
`declared_total_currency`	No
`declared_total_amount_units`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real operational facts: the call is free, rate-limited to 100/day per wallet keyed on caller, and produces a quote but no report or settlement resolution. It does not say whether the call is read-only/idempotent or whether failed validations consume the allowance, which are the remaining gaps.

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 key fact ("FREE pre-check") is front-loaded and the sentence packs allowance, capabilities, and exclusions without filler. The fragment style ("No settlement resolution, no report") is terse but readable.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an 11-parameter reconciliation precheck with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and cost but leaves the relationship between steps, settlements, and declared totals unexplained, and says nothing about what the returned quote looks like beyond naming it.

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 55%, so roughly half the parameters (agent_id, window_start/end, declared_total_* fields) rely on the schema alone. The description's only parameter-level signal is "pass caller", which the schema already documents as the allowance key, so it adds little meaning beyond what is structured.

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 names concrete operations (validation, F1-F9 assessability, pricing census, step/block/fee quote) and explicitly scopes out what it does not do ("No settlement resolution, no report"), which implicitly separates it from subset_reconcile_reconcile. It stops short of naming the sibling tools directly, so the differentiation requires a small inference.

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?

"FREE pre-check ... pass caller" gives an invocation cue and the cost/allowance context, and "no settlement resolution, no report" hints that reconciliation itself lives elsewhere. However, it never states explicitly when to call this versus subset_reconcile_criteria or subset_reconcile_reconcile, so the routing is only implied.

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?