Skip to main content
Glama

Redeal

by dev.redeal.api

create_deal

Create a fairness deal. You are party 0 (initiator). Returns a deal id and one invite token per party — give each counterparty their own token. Sealed mode: everyone commits a hash, then reveals; certificate is issued automatically when the deal computes or goes VOID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo"sealed" (default, commit/reveal) or "open" (single round trip, low stakes).
api_keyYesYour redeal API key (get one free with create_key — no signup form).
algorithmYesAlgorithm id from list_algorithms: "split.v1" (fixed 1,000-point budget) | "random.v1" | "shapley.v1" | "auction.v1".
retentionNo"standard" (inputs retained encrypted) or "purge" (destroyed 7 days after certification).
supersedesNoOptional: certificate id (c_<16 hex>) this deal's certificate replaces (re-draw after VOID etc.).
terms_hashNoOptional: "sha256:<hex>" of the deal's terms (echoed into the certificate; we never see the terms).
visibilityNoOptional: "public" (default — anyone can fetch the certificate at its id) or "parties" (only you and your invite-token holders). Certificates never contain inputs, only the outcome; choose "parties" when the outcome itself is sensitive.
external_refNoOptional: your own identifier for this deal, e.g. "campaign-4821" (echoed into the certificate).
party_labelsYesOne label per party, e.g. ["alice", "bob"] — or objects {"label", "weight"?, "statement_hash"?} (weight defaults to 1; statement_hash is "sha256:<hex>" of a declaration you want bound into the certificate). Party 0 is you (the initiator). Labels go on the public certificate permanently: use nicknames, never real names or emails.
commit_deadlineYesCommit deadline as unix seconds UTC. Missed → deal EXPIRES (no certificate).
idempotency_keyNoOptional: retries with the same key + same arguments replay the original response.
reveal_deadlineYesReveal deadline as unix seconds UTC (after commit_deadline). Missed → deal goes VOID and a non-participation certificate names whoever didn't reveal.
algorithm_paramsNoAlgorithm-specific params from list_algorithms. split.v1: {"items": [...]}; random.v1: {"drand_round": N}; shapley.v1: {"coalition_values": {...}}; auction.v1: {"item": "...", "unit": "GBP", "reserve": N}.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns deal ids and tokens, explains sealed mode behavior (commit/reveal), and notes automatic certificate issuance on compute or VOID. It does not detail costs or side effects, but it provides sufficient behavioral context for the core operation.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, output, and mode workflow. It is appropriately sized for the complexity, avoiding redundancy with the schema.

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 the complex 13-parameter tool and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: creation, tokens, sealed mode, and automatic certificate. It does not repeat parameter details (handled by schema) and provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role in the broader process. Minor gaps like prerequisites (API key) are covered in the schema.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, only briefly mentioning sealed mode tied to the mode parameter. It does not elaborate on param formats or inter-relations, leaving the schema to do the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states 'Create a fairness deal' with specific details about parties, tokens, and mode. It clearly distinguishes this as the deal-creation tool among siblings like commit_input and get_deal, with a specific verb+resource and a clear outline of expected actions.

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 what the tool does and the workflow (create deal, then commit/reveal), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when to use' versus 'when to use another tool' guidance, but the purpose is clear enough that usage is inferred.

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

All Redeal toolsInspect
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 has a clear, distinct role in the deal lifecycle: key creation, deal creation, algorithm listing, input validation, commitment computation, committing, revealing, entropy retrieval, certificate fetching, and certificate verification. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_deal, get_certificate, verify_certificate). The verbs and nouns are descriptive and match the tool's function. There is no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for the fairness deal domain. Each tool earns its place, covering onboarding, deal creation, input handling, execution, and verification without unnecessary redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: create key, create deal, inspect algorithms, validate inputs, compute commitments, commit, reveal, fetch entropy for random deals, retrieve certificates, and verify them. The main gap is a tool for counterparties to accept/join a deal using the invite token, but this may be handled outside the MCP server.

Resources