Vurto Swap

payout_reuse

Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview which wallets in a batch (Solana or EVM) already have a fresh paid analysis by this payer, so payout_batch would not charge for them again. This reveals a payer's own analysis history, so it needs the paying wallet's signed session; the MCP carries no session, so it always returns { paid: [] } and the batch charges every destination. Exposed for parity. Returns { paid: string[] }.

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": {
      "chainId": "<chainId>",
      "payer": "<payer>",
      "recipients": "<recipients>",
      "checks": "<checks>"
    },
    "name": "payout_reuse"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`payer`	Yes	The paying wallet (base58 on Solana, 0x on EVM).
`token`	No	The batch token address, same as the batch. Required on EVM, ignored on Solana.
`checks`	Yes	The paid analysis tools, same as the batch.
`chainId`	Yes	EVM: integer from GET /v1/chains (1, 10, 56, 100, 137, 8453, 42161, 43114, 130). Solana: string from GET /v1/svm/chains ("solana-mainnet").
`recipients`	Yes	The destination wallets, same list as the batch.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / payer / description

Previous value: -"The paying wallet (base58)."New value: +"The paying wallet (base58 on Solana, 0x on EVM)."

addedInput schema / properties / token

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The batch token address, same as the batch. Required on EVM, ignored on Solana.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the authorization requirement (paying wallet's signed session), the fact the MCP carries no session, and the exact degenerate outcome ({ paid: [] }). This is the single most decision-relevant behavioral fact and it is stated plainly.

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 purpose, then the caveat that actually governs behavior, then the return shape; nearly every sentence earns its place. Minor redundancy in the closing 'Exposed for parity' plus the explicit return type, which could be folded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return shape ({ paid: string[] }) and explains the conditions under which it is always empty. For a five-parameter read-only preview, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so payer, token, checks, chainId and recipients are already documented. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond saying the inputs mirror the batch, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Preview which wallets in a batch ... already have a fresh paid analysis by this payer') and names its relationship to payout_batch, so an agent can separate it from payout_batch and payout_charge 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a strong implicit exclusion – the tool always returns an empty list in MCP, so calling it is pointless and the batch will charge every destination – which is clearer guidance than most definitions provide. It stops short of naming an alternative for what to do instead, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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

All Vurto Swap 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?