Skip to main content
Glama

Synthex Forge — x402 Paid Agent Services

Create Dispute Ruling

create_dispute_ruling
Destructive

A binding ruling on a dispute from the contract. use it rather than verify_dispute_ruling for dispute ruling specifically; an object with 26 fields including advisory, algorithm. $2 USDC.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimNo{obligation, claimed_by, against}. The obligation is a human sentence; the engine parses the required row count and the required coverage window out of it, and reports what it could not read.
policyNo{on_partial: 'pro_rata'}. The split formula is published and fixed; this records the caller's declared policy.
case_idNoThe caller's case id.
contractNo{artifact_requirements, required_rows?, required_window?}. The machine-readable requirement WINS over the parsed sentence.
evidenceNo{buyer: [...], seller: [...]}. Each entry is a {kind, content, manifest, sha256, tx_hash} evidence item.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
basisNoThe `basis` field of the response.
buyerNoThe `buyer` field of the response.
key_idNoThe `key_id` field of the response.
sellerNoThe `seller` field of the response.
sha256NoThe `sha256` field of the response.
case_idNoThe `case_id` field of the response.
outcomeNoThe `outcome` field of the response.
advisoryNoThe `advisory` field of the response.
signedByNoThe `signedBy` field of the response.
algorithmNoThe `algorithm` field of the response.
signatureYesThe Ed25519 signature over the evidence core, base64-encoded.
split_pctNoThe `split_pct` field of the response.
confidenceNoConfidence in the verdict, 0 to 1.
disclaimerNoThe `disclaimer` field of the response.
ed25519SigNoThe `ed25519Sig` field of the response.
evidenceCoreNoThe `evidenceCore` field of the response.
publicKeyHexNoThe `publicKeyHex` field of the response.
output_sha256YesSHA-256 hex digest of the canonical evidence core.
rules_versionNoThe `rules_version` field of the response.
split_formulaNoThe `split_formula` field of the response.
delivery_ratioNoThe `delivery_ratio` field of the response.
canonicalSha256NoThe `canonicalSha256` field of the response.
profile_versionNoVersion of the answer profile.
reproducibilityNoThe `reproducibility` field of the response.
evidence_missingNoThe `evidence_missing` field of the response.
evidence_consideredNoThe `evidence_considered` field of the response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed28 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / advisory
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `advisory` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / algorithm
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `algorithm` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / basis
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `basis` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / buyer
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `buyer` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / canonicalSha256
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `canonicalSha256` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / case_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `case_id` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / confidence
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Confidence in the verdict, 0 to 1.",
      +  "type": "number"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / delivery_ratio
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `delivery_ratio` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / disclaimer
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `disclaimer` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / ed25519Sig
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `ed25519Sig` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / evidenceCore
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `evidenceCore` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / evidence_considered
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `evidence_considered` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / evidence_missing
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `evidence_missing` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / key_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `key_id` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / outcome
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `outcome` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / output_sha256
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "SHA-256 hex digest of the canonical evidence core.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / profile_version
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Version of the answer profile.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / publicKeyHex
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `publicKeyHex` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / reproducibility
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `reproducibility` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / rules_version
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `rules_version` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / seller
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `seller` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / sha256
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `sha256` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / signature
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The Ed25519 signature over the evidence core, base64-encoded.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / signedBy
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `signedBy` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / split_formula
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `split_formula` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / split_pct
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The `split_pct` field of the response.",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / status
      Removed value: -{
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • addedOutput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "output_sha256",
      +  "signature"
      +]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — a $2 USDC cost and the rough return shape (26 fields including advisory, algorithm). What it omits is the consequence side: since it is destructive and non-idempotent, it should say whether a ruling is final/irreversible and what re-invocation does.

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?

One dense sentence carries purpose, sibling disambiguation, return shape, and price with no filler. Front-loaded with the core definition, though the semicolon-spliced clauses and lowercase 'use it' read slightly informally.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and the schema plus annotations cover inputs and safety. But for a destructive, non-idempotent, paid adjudication call, the description should state what the ruling decides, whether it is final on-chain/off-chain, and what happens to the $2 if the call fails — none of which is available elsewhere.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the nested `claim`, `contract`, and `evidence` objects are documented in detail, including the precedence rule that the machine-readable contract wins over the parsed sentence. The description itself adds nothing about the five parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource ('a binding ruling on a dispute from the contract') and implicitly the operation, and it explicitly routes away from the similarly named sibling `verify_dispute_ruling`. The verb is not stated outright ('Create ...' lives only in the title), so it is clear but not maximally crisp.

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?

It names one alternative (`verify_dispute_ruling`) and says to prefer this one, which is real routing guidance. However, the qualifier 'for dispute ruling specifically' is near-circular since both tools concern dispute rulings, and there is no when-not guidance (e.g., do not call twice, or when a ruling already exists).

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.