SiteCheck

Create an unsigned Panta buy transaction

markets_build_buy

Build an unsigned Panta buy transaction (Solana v0, base64, plus the raw instructions) for your own wallet to sign and broadcast. SiteCheck never signs, holds keys or custodies funds. Then report the signature to POST /api/markets/report (free). Related tools on this server, for a different need: markets_quote when you need quote a YES or NO buy on a Panta market for a USDC amount; markets when you need to search Panta prediction markets. Price: $0.01 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "side": "<side>",
      "amountUsdc": "<amountUsdc>",
      "wallet": "<wallet>"
    },
    "name": "markets_build_buy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Panta market id (the market's event address, base58), from GET /api/markets
`side`	Yes	yes or no
`wallet`	Yes	The buyer's Solana wallet (base58). It pays and signs; SiteCheck never does.
`amountUsdc`	Yes	USDC to spend, as a decimal string, e.g. "5.00"
`maxSlippageBps`	No	1-5000, default 100 (1%)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`order`	No
`disclaimer`	No
`transaction`	No
`instructions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "disclaimer": {},
+    "instructions": {},
+    "order": {},
+    "transaction": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the transaction is unsigned and never broadcast by the server, no keys are held or funds custodied, and the call costs $0.01 USDC via x402 with failed calls free. That covers novel traits like billing and custody, though it doesn't mention latency, payload size, or what happens if the market is closed or the wallet lacks USDC.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and output shape, then the next step, then alternatives and pricing — a sensible information order with almost no filler. One small flaw: 'when you need quote a YES or NO buy' is grammatically broken and slightly slows parsing.

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?

For a paid, open-world builder tool with a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, that the server never signs, the cost and payment rails, and the required reporting step. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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 all five parameters, including the 1-5000 bps slippage bounds and the decimal-string amount format, are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the wallet's role ('It pays and signs') but adds no new constraints or format detail for id, side, or amountUsdc.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Build an unsigned Panta buy transaction' — and pins down the output format (Solana v0, base64, plus raw instructions) and its intended consumer (your own wallet). It explicitly separates itself from markets_quote and markets, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Names the sibling alternatives with the exact condition that selects each ('markets_quote when you need quote a YES or NO buy...', 'markets when you need to search Panta prediction markets'). It also gives the follow-on step (report the signature to POST /api/markets/report), which is the missing piece most agents would otherwise guess at.

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

All SiteCheck 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.