agentic-commerce

commit_to_buyer_offer

Destructive

Fulfils a buyer-initiated offer (creator='BUYER') by the seller. Caller must be the seller. Provide matching collateral. Returns unsigned transaction data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`offerId`	Yes	ID of a buyer-initiated offer (creator='BUYER') to commit to. The seller fulfils the offer.
`configId`	Yes	Boson/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.
`royaltyInfo`	No
`executionMode`	No	'direct' = standard on-chain tx (sign locally with your wallet → send_signed_transaction). 'metaTx' = gasless relay via Biconomy (send_meta_transaction). Defaults to 'direct'.
`signerAddress`	Yes	Ethereum address that will sign and send this transaction. Must match the wallet that will sign the returned transaction locally.
`collectionIndex`	No
`drMutualizerAddress`	No	Valid Ethereum address (e.g. '0xAbCd...' or '0xabcd...'). Mixed-case addresses are checksum-validated; all-lowercase and all-uppercase addresses are also accepted.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns unsigned transaction data (not directly executing) and mentions the collateral prerequisite, providing behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, caller requirement, prerequisite, and return type. No fluff.

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?

The description is adequate but incomplete given the 7-parameter complexity and no output schema. It mentions 'unsigned transaction data' but does not describe the structure of the response. It also fails to explain the prerequisite 'matching collateral' in detail.

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?

With 71% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning; it does not elaborate on any of the 7 parameters.

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 verb 'Fulfils', the resource 'buyer-initiated offer', and specifies the actor 'by the seller'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'commit_to_offer' by focusing on buyer-initiated offers (creator='BUYER').

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 provides explicit usage conditions: caller must be the seller and must provide matching collateral. It does not explicitly compare with alternative commit tools, but the buyer-initiated context is clear.

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

All agentic-commerce tools Inspect

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

Need Help?