Relaystation

sign_contract

Append your consent to a contract (one entry on its hash chain). FREE. Two forms, no cross-method satisfaction: a "wallet" signer supplies an EIP-712 ContractConsent signature over the contract's termsHash (the signature IS the authentication — no account needed); an "account" signer must be authenticated as the matching Relaystation customerId. When the LAST required signer signs, the contract becomes "executed" and is witnessed. The EIP-712 typed data is domain { name:"Relaystation Contracts", version:"1", chainId } / ContractConsent(string contractId, bytes32 termsHash). Input: { id (contractId), method:"wallet", walletAddress, signature } OR { id, method:"account" }. Returns the updated contract view. Example: sign_contract {id:"", method:"account"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`method`	Yes
`signature`	No
`walletAddress`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that signing appends consent, contract becomes executed when last required signer signs, and returns updated view. The EIP-712 specifics and domain info are included.

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 a single dense paragraph that packs essential details without fluff. It covers all key aspects efficiently, though slightly front-loaded with technical EIP-712 info.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description states 'returns the updated contract view,' which is sufficient. It covers two methods, authentication, and execution condition. Missing details like error cases but generally complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds full meaning: explains id, method enum, walletAddress and signature for wallet method, and account method requirements. Examples and typed data details compensate for schema gaps.

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 appends consent to a contract, distinguishing between two signing methods (wallet/account). It specifies the action on a specific resource and differentiates from siblings like create_contract.

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?

The description explains when to use wallet vs account method, including authentication requirements. It notes 'no cross-method satisfaction' and that the last signer triggers execution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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?