laen

army_buy

PAID (your wallet). Submit the signed X-PAYMENT payload your client produced for this service's requirements and receive the deliverable plus a FREE cryptographic hash receipt with an independently checkable verify_url. Fail-closed and proof-gated: if the deliverable does not pass its published acceptance rule, the response is an error and YOUR AUTHORIZATION IS NEVER CAPTURED — you are not charged for work that failed its own test. Without x_payment this returns the 402 requirements so you can pay and retry.

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": {
      "service_id": "<service_id>"
    },
    "name": "army_buy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`input`	No	the request body for the service
`x_payment`	No	base64 X-PAYMENT payload signed by YOUR wallet for this service's x402 requirements
`service_id`	Yes	soldier id, e.g. sol-01-web-search

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedAug 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses payment semantics, fail-closed behavior, proof-gating, the no-charge-on-failure guarantee, the fact that authorization is never captured, and the 402 fallback when x_payment is missing.

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?

All sentences are substantive and the description front-loads the critical payment cue. It explains success, failure, no-charge behavior, and missing-payment behavior in a compact, structured paragraph without redundant fluff.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers when to call, preconditions, failure modes, payment safety, and receipt outputs. It gives the agent enough context to select, invoke, and understand the result flow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is satisfied. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: x_payment must be signed by your wallet, omitted payment causes a 402 response, and service_id maps to soldier ids like sol-01-web-search. It does not fully explain the shape of the input object, but the schema covers that.

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 clearly states this is a paid purchase/execution tool: submit the X-PAYMENT payload and receive the deliverable plus a hash receipt. It distinguishes itself from siblings like army_list_services and army_quote by emphasizing payment and the signed payload requirement.

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?

It explicitly says this tool is for submitting a signed X-PAYMENT payload and that without x_payment it returns 402 requirements so the agent can pay and retry. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for quoting or listing services, though the sibling names and context make that reasonably clear.

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

All laen tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?