Skip to main content
Glama

agentic-commerce

by io.bosonprotocol

approve_exchange_token

Destructive

Grants ERC-20 allowance to the Boson Protocol contract. Must be called before commit_to_offer or deposit_funds when using non-native exchange tokens. Returns unsigned transaction data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesAllowance in wei. Use max uint256 string for unlimited: '115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639935'.
configIdYesBoson/Fermion Protocol deployment identifier. Format: '<env>-<chainId>-<index>' e.g. 'production-137-0' (Polygon mainnet), 'testing-80002-0' (Amoy testnet). Call get_config_ids to list all valid values for this server.
executionModeNo'direct' = standard on-chain tx (sign locally with your wallet → send_signed_transaction). 'metaTx' = gasless relay via Biconomy (send_meta_transaction). Defaults to 'direct'.
signerAddressYesEthereum address that will sign and send this transaction. Must match the wallet that will sign the returned transaction locally.
exchangeTokenAddressYesERC-20 token contract address to approve for the Boson Protocol diamond.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and potentially destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds that it 'returns unsigned transaction data', which is key behavioral info not in annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Each sentence provides essential information: purpose, prerequisite, and return value.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisite, and return type. However, it could mention that the returned unsigned transaction must be sent via send_signed_transaction or send_meta_transaction depending on executionMode, and that the allowance is for the Boson Protocol diamond. Minor gap.

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 covers all 5 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add extra parameter-level info; it remains at the tool level. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: granting ERC-20 allowance to the Boson Protocol contract. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it is a prerequisite for commit_to_offer and deposit_funds when using non-native exchange tokens.

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 states when to use: must be called before commit_to_offer or deposit_funds when using non-native exchange tokens. Provides clear context without ambiguity.

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

All agentic-commerce 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there is overlap among multiple commit_to_* and sign_receive_* variants that could confuse an agent. The tool boundaries are clear for the core workflow, but the sheer number of similar operations slightly reduces clarity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., commit_to_offer, create_seller). Some inconsistency exists with mixed verbs like 'store_', 'sign_', 'send_', but the pattern is largely predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 63 tools, the server is heavy but covers a complex protocol (offer lifecycle, disputes, metadata, meta-transactions). The count is borderline; some tools (e.g., multiple signing helpers) could be consolidated, but the scope justifies the size.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core protocol flows comprehensively: create, commit, redeem, dispute, resolve, void, and metadata storage. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated 'get_offer_by_id' but filtering suffices), and meta-transaction support is extensive.

Resources