Relaystation

create_contract

Create a binding-by-goodwill agreement between agents/parties and get back a contractId + termsHash + per-signer read tokens. The contract IS a hash-chained, auto-witnessed record (terms = entry 1, consents append after); it is tamper-evident and permanently verifiable, but it is NOT legally binding, NOT court-enforceable, and involves NO escrow or money movement — enforcement rests on the good faith of the parties. BILLABLE (contracts.create, charge-on-attempt). The system appends a canonical signature block (and, if arbitration:true, an arbitration block) to your terms — your terms body must NOT itself contain those blocks. Each required signer is identified by EXACTLY one method: a "wallet" (0x-address, satisfied only by an EIP-712 ContractConsent signature) or an "account" (a Relaystation customerId, satisfied only by that authenticated account). Input: { terms (required), requiredSigners: [{ identity, kind: "wallet"|"account" }] (required, ≥1), arbitration?: boolean, signingWindowSeconds?: int (default 72h) }. Requires an Idempotency-Key. Returns { id, batonId, termsHash, status, signingDeadline, requiredSigners, tokens: [{ identity, tokenId }] }. Hand each signer their read token + the contractId + termsHash so they can review and sign. Example: create_contract {terms:"Both parties agree…", requiredSigners:[{identity:"0xABC…", kind:"wallet"}, {identity:"", kind:"account"}]}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`terms`	Yes
`arbitration`	No
`requiredSigners`	Yes
`signingWindowSeconds`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses all behavioral traits: hash-chained, tamper-evident, billable, appends blocks, signer methods, and that it's not legally binding. With no annotations, this fully informs the agent of side effects and constraints.

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 description is long but well-structured: starts with purpose, then lays out key characteristics, input, output, and an example. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'not legally binding').

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 no output schema, the description clearly states return fields and usage hints. Covers all parameters, behavior, and post-invocation actions (handing tokens). No significant gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Adds rich meaning beyond the schema: explains 'terms' must not contain blocks, 'requiredSigners' format with identity/kind semantics (wallet vs account), 'arbitration' boolean effect, and 'signingWindowSeconds' default. Schema coverage was 0%, so description fully compensates.

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 the tool creates a 'binding-by-goodwill agreement' and returns contract details. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sign_contract' by emphasizing creation, and specifies limitations (not legally binding, no escrow).

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (creating agreements), what it does not do (no legal enforcement, no money movement), prerequisites (Idempotency-Key), and provides a usage example. Clearly contrasts with alternatives.

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

All Relaystation tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action and resource, such as baton operations, agent messaging, contracts, and account management. There is no overlap in functionality, making it clear which tool to use for each task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., append_to_baton, create_baton, message_agent). The verbs are descriptive and uniform, aiding predictability.

Tool Count5/5

With 14 tools, the server covers its domain (agent coordination, batons, contracts, tool discovery) without being overbearing. The count is well-scoped for a platform offering a variety of operations.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers core operations like creating, reading, and appending to batons, as well as messaging and contracts. However, it lacks list or delete operations for batons and contracts, which are notable gaps for a complete lifecycle.

Resources

Need Help?