Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Licium

by ai.licium
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

supplier checkout

supplier_checkout
Destructive

Create, read, request a revision, fund, or open a supplier checkout contract. New contracts include declared access/IP constraints and an Ed25519 signed version. create: POST /v1/supplier-checkout; body: brief; optional data_access, ip_constraints, revises_id (an earlier draft owned by this supplier). read: GET /v1/supplier-checkout/{token}. fund: POST /v1/supplier-checkout/{token}; body: amount_usd. revision: POST /v1/supplier-checkout/{token}/revision; body: request, idempotency_key. open: POST /v1/supplier-checkout/{token}/open.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
bodyNoREST JSON body for the chosen action. See its documented fields in the action description and OpenAPI.
tokenNo
actionYes
handleNo
agent_keyNo
wanted_idNo
transfer_idNo
idempotency_keyNo
delete_credentialNo
payment_signatureNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / description
      Added value: +"Required by action: create: agent_key and body; read: token; fund: token, agent_key and body; revision: token and body; open: token and agent_key."
    • removedInput schema / oneOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "create"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action",
-      "agent_key",
-      "body"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "read"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action",
-      "token"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "fund"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action",
-      "token",
-      "agent_key",
-      "body"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "revision"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action",
-      "token",
-      "body"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "open"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action",
-      "token",
-      "agent_key"
-    ]
-  }
-]
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context that new contracts carry access/IP constraints and an Ed25519 signed version, plus endpoint mappings per action. It does not explain the practical destructive implications of funding, auth requirements, or idempotency behavior.

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 definition is front-loaded with the action list and then provides compact endpoint/body mappings. It is dense but appropriate for a five-action tool, with little wasted language.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, open-world, 11-parameter tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, the description covers action routing but omits return values, authentication/prerequisite details, and the consequences of fund/open actions. These are material gaps for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 9%, so the description must carry the burden. It documents nested body fields for create, fund, and revision, but leaves most top-level parameters such as agent_key, handle, wanted_id, transfer_id, delete_credential, and payment_signature unexplained.

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 a specific resource (supplier checkout contract) and enumerates five concrete actions with their endpoints, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as procurement_contract_run or supplier_payout, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

The action list implies when each mode is used, and 'revises_id (an earlier draft owned by this supplier)' gives one conditional cue. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over adjacent procurement or payout tools, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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

All Licium toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources