Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Hub - AI-operated public sandbox: demo data, simulated payments, no real bookings

confirm_booking

STEP 5, the committing call — turns a hold into a booking. payload = { hold_id } (from hold_slot). Your envelope signature IS the buyer signature on the resulting booking, so this is a non-repudiable act: do not call it speculatively. SIDE EFFECTS: returns { ok, status, booking_id, payment_status } with status "BOOKED", or { ok, status, booking_id, approval_id } with status "PENDING_APPROVAL" (no payment_status on that branch) when the BUYER's own policy requires a human for booking.confirm (it is the buyer policy that decides, not the shop). Sandbox covers the MONEY here, not only the goods: no payment processor is connected, so nothing on this hub moves funds and no card or account of yours is ever touched. Of the 5 payment states it publishes, exactly 1 can ever reach you — funds simulated as escrowed — and the other 4 never ride this field, 3 of them being vocabulary in the enum rather than behaviour today, so no settlement follows this call. Those names are deliberately NOT repeated here: they name states of the payment, and this description is where you read your own booking status, which is exactly where a foreign state literal gets misread. https://hub.videtion.com/spec §5 tables all 5 and says, for each, whether shipped code can produce it. What IS real is the record: the payment row and its booking are written to this hub’s database and outlive the call. Agents that register here are provisioned at full autonomy, so every confirm that SUCCEEDS ends at BOOKED: the PENDING_APPROVAL branch above is not merely unlikely for you, it is UNREACHABLE from self-registration, and approve_pending has no caller you can become (its own description carries the full reason). That is a claim about the approval branch only — a confirm can still fail, see ERRORS below. Requires the booking.confirm capability. ERRORS: over your daily booking cap this answers 429 "reservations_per_day exceeded" — YOUR counter, cleared at midnight UTC, so wait rather than retry, and do not take a fresh hold in the meantime (a hold is not capped, so you would just park a real slot for 15 minutes and still not confirm it). Every other refusal from the policy gate is a 403 that no retry and no re-read of the offer list can clear. Sandbox: bookings are against demo inventory and bind nobody in the real world.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nonceYesSingle-use random string, 1..256 chars (32 hex recommended). A nonce this agent has used before is rejected as a replay (401).
payloadYesCovered by the signature.
agent_idYesThe agent_id returned by register_agent. Call that tool first; it is the only one needing no credentials.
signatureYesHex-encoded ed25519 signature over the RFC 8785 (JCS) canonical JSON of exactly {payload, agent_id, nonce, timestamp} — the whole envelope minus this field. Sign with the private key matching the public_key you registered. Worked example, and where it actually is: https://hub.videtion.com/quickstart.mjs — 6941 bytes, zero dependencies, Node 20+, which mints an ed25519 key, canonicalises exactly these four fields and signs them, so you can diff your bytes against a call this hub accepts. https://hub.videtion.com/spec states the same rule in prose and field tables and publishes no signature to copy: it is the reference, not the example.
timestampYesEpoch MILLISECONDS (Date.now()), not seconds. Must be within +/-60 s of server time, else 401 stale timestamp.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discharges it thoroughly: the non-repudiable signature, both return branches (BOOKED vs PENDING_APPROVAL with their differing fields), and the persistence of the database record are all disclosed. It clarifies the sandbox's limited scope — no funds move, no settlement follows, demo inventory binds nobody — preventing a realistic misread of payment_state values. It even names the required capability (booking.confirm) and the daily-cap error semantics.

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 deliberately structured with SIDE EFFECTS, ERRORS, and Sandbox sections, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every major block earns its place — the payment-state digression and the PENDING_APPROVAL reachability argument both guard against realistic agent mistakes. A few sentences are defensively meta ('Those names are deliberately NOT repeated here'), which is why it stops short of a 5.

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 high-stakes mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: both return shapes, all error classes, prerequisites, capability requirement, sandbox semantics, and workflow position. The absence of an output schema is fully compensated by the explicit side-effects block. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail, including signature canonicalization rules and timestamp tolerance, making 3 the baseline. The description adds modest context — hold_id comes from hold_slot (already stated in the schema) and the signature carries buyer-level legal weight — but does not materially extend parameter semantics. The heavy lifting is correctly left to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'turns a hold into a booking' — and positions the tool as 'STEP 5, the committing call' in a defined workflow. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming hold_slot as the producer of the hold_id it consumes and approve_pending as a branch that is unreachable for self-registered agents. There is zero ambiguity about what this tool does or where it sits relative to the other five tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-call guidance: payload comes from hold_slot, establishing step ordering, and the non-repudiation warning — 'do not call it speculatively' — states a clear when-not. Error handling is prescriptive: on 429 wait rather than retry and do not take a fresh hold in the meantime; other policy refusals are retry-proof 403s. Sibling routing is explicit — approve_pending 'has no caller you can become' — so nothing is left to inference.

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.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a single numbered protocol step—register, intent, offer listing, hold, confirm, approve—and acts on a distinct resource. confirm_booking and approve_pending are clearly separated by buyer/seller side and by state.

Naming Consistency5/5

All six tool names are consistent verb_noun snake_case: register_agent, send_intent, list_offers, hold_slot, confirm_booking, approve_pending. The verbs clearly describe the action and the nouns the target resource.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools are well-scoped for the described buy-flow protocol: registration, intent, offers, hold, commit, and seller-side approval. No tool is redundant, and the count does not feel padded or thin.

Completeness4/5

The core buyer workflow is complete from self-registration through booking confirmation, with the seller approval branch documented. Missing read-back/cancel operations for holds and bookings are acknowledged limitations, so agents can work around them by tracking IDs and letting holds expire.

Resources