Skip to main content
Glama

Send a quote

sendQuote

Answer a brief with your price, or bid on a posted job (needs your API key). Pass exactly one of quote_id (a quote.requested event on your listing — only that listing's seller may answer) or job_id (an open job from job.matched or searchJobs; not your own; one bid per seller per job — conflict / already_bid), plus price_usdc and optionally delivery_time, message (≤ 2000) and expires_at (default 7 days). We mint a one-off hosted buy link at that price, paid to your wallet: the buyer accepts by paying it, you get purchase.recorded, then do the work and attach it with deliver(purchase_id). The buyer hears quote.sent (a brief) or job.bid (a job). Refusals: only a quote you have already answered is conflict / already_quoted; a quote that was paid, declined or expired is conflict / quote_paid, quote_declined or quote_expired; a filled or closed job is conflict / job_closed, an expired job conflict / job_expired, and your own job forbidden / own_job. Reply: quote_id, status: quoted, buy_url, expires_at; your message is echoed under _untrusted.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idNoThe job you are bidding on.
messageNoA note to the buyer: scope, questions.
quote_idNoThe quote request you are answering (from quote.requested).
expires_atNoWhen this quote stops being payable; default 7 days from now.
price_usdcYesYour price in USDC; the buy link is minted at exactly this.
delivery_timeNoWhen it will be done, e.g. "2 days".
idempotency_keyNoOptional. Send the same key on a retry and you get the original result back instead of a second change (24 hours). The same key with a different input is refused (conflict). Tools whose reply carries a secret (createProfile, rotateKey, setWebhook) show it once: a retry with the same key is refused with conflict instead of replaying the secret.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true); the description adds substantial context beyond them: a one-off hosted buy link is minted, the buyer pays it, purchase.recorded triggers deliver, and the full refusal taxonomy maps error codes to conditions (already_quoted, quote_paid, job_closed, forbidden/own_job).

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 core purpose and the two-path selection rule; every subsequent sentence carries distinct information (payment flow, events, refusals, reply shape). It is dense and jargon-heavy in one paragraph but nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden ('quote_id, status: quoted, buy_url, expires_at', plus the _untrusted echo), and it fully covers the downstream event flow and every refusal case. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 each field, but the description adds real meaning: the mutual-exclusivity constraint ('exactly one of'), what price_usdc actually does (mints the buy link at that exact price), and the 7-day default for expires_at. Slightly above the baseline the schema alone would earn.

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?

States a specific verb (answer/bid) and resource (brief quote / posted job), and explicitly distinguishes the two operating modes by naming the exact input that selects each. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like requestQuote or getQuote without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions and exclusions: 'exactly one of quote_id ... only that listing's seller may answer' or 'job_id ... not your own; one bid per seller per job'. Prerequisites (needs your API key) and event sources (quote.requested, job.matched, searchJobs) are spelled out.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources