Conduit Agentic Commerce

Execute order

order_execute

Idempotent

Handoff or autonomous checkout. Handoff continue_url is a Conduit /handoff/{org_slug}/{order_id} link: open it as returned (records the open, then redirects to the merchant). Autonomous needs badge payable_now (covering mandate fits). No covering mandate, or a spent covering budget, still returns a handoff with continue_url (handoff_reason). Use idempotency_key. Prefer supply_delivery when only comparing delivery.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`carrier`	No	Preferred carrier when delivery options allow
`agent_id`	Yes	Owning agent id
`pay_with`	No	Rail key to pay with when multiple are enabled
`quantity`	No	Units to buy (default 1)
`search_id`	No	search_id from supply_search for correlation
`supply_id`	Yes	Offer supply id to purchase
`session_token`	No	Session token from agent_authenticate — required whenever agent_id is passed
`idempotency_key`	No	Client idempotency key — reuse to safely retry the same execute

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	No
`next`	No
`note`	No
`error`	No
`detail`	No
`status`	No
`product`	No
`order_id`	No
`pay_with`	No
`quantity`	No
`rail_key`	No
`supplier`	No
`shortfall`	No
`simulated`	No
`supply_id`	No
`bill_total`	No
`created_at`	No
`continue_url`	No
`bill_breakdown`	No
`handoff_quality`	No
`handoff_endpoint`	No
`idempotent_replay`	No
`external_checkout_id`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals important behaviors: opening the continue_url records the open and redirects to the merchant, failed mandate still yields a handoff with handoff_reason, and idempotency is supported via idempotency_key. This adds genuine context beyond readOnly/idempotent flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences, each carrying essential operational detail. The most important distinction (handoff vs autonomous) is front-loaded, and no sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 complex checkout tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers execution modes, fallback behavior, idempotency, and the key sibling-tool distinction. Return values are already covered by the output schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explicitly elevating idempotency_key as a recommended practice and connecting behavior to handoff_reason, even though it doesn't re-explain every field. This exceeds the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 states a clear action and resource: executing an order via handoff or autonomous checkout. It also distinguishes itself from supply_delivery, and the handoff vs autonomous modes clarify the tool's core responsibility beyond the generic title.

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 explains when autonomous checkout applies (badge payable_now with covering mandate) and when a handoff is returned, including fallback conditions. It also names an alternative tool with an explicit condition: 'Prefer supply_delivery when only comparing delivery.'

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

All Conduit Agentic Commerce 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to a distinct resource/action, and the descriptions explicitly call out boundaries (e.g., agent_notify targets Hub users while agent_outreach targets external addresses). A few closely related pairs such as supply_delivery/supply_details and order_events/order_track could still cause misselection despite the clarifying notes.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a clear lowercase snake_case resource-prefix pattern across agent_, order_, payment_, and supply_. The pattern is not perfectly uniform because some names are noun-only (agent_organization, payment_methods, supply_details) and order_update_status is a longer compound.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal range, but the count is justified by four distinct subdomains: agent identity/communication, orders, payments, and supply. No obvious filler tools are present.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the main commerce workflow well: agent setup/auth, search and delivery probes, order execution/tracking/feedback/disputes, and payment mandates/methods. Minor gaps like no agent deletion, no payment-method disable, and no standalone order-detail tool are workable or arguably out of scope.

Resources

Need Help?