Skip to main content
Glama

agentic-commerce

by io.bosonprotocol

commit_to_conditional_offer

Destructive

Commits to a token-gated (conditional) offer using a specific gating tokenId. Caller (signerAddress) must hold the gating token specified by the offer's condition. Use this instead of commit_to_offer for offers created via create_offer_with_condition. Returns unsigned transaction data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buyerNoOptional buyer address if different from signerAddress. When set, executionMode must be 'direct'.
offerIdYesID of a conditional (token-gated) offer to commit to. Caller must hold the gating token specified by the offer's condition.
tokenIdYesToken ID of the gate token used to qualify for the conditional commit (relevant for ERC-721/1155 and TokenRange gating).
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.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it states the caller must hold the gating token (authorization requirement) and that it returns unsigned transaction data. Since annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description aligns and adds useful behavioral details without contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action, immediately gives usage guidance, and mentions the return type. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of output schema, the description mentions 'Returns unsigned transaction data', which is crucial. It covers prerequisites and usage. With 6 parameters all detailed in the schema, and a conditional nature, the description is nearly complete, though it could note potential errors or edge cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It restates the gating condition but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Commits' and the specific resource 'token-gated (conditional) offer using a specific gating tokenId'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying 'Use this instead of commit_to_offer for offers created via create_offer_with_condition'. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 guidance: 'Use this instead of commit_to_offer for offers created via create_offer_with_condition'. It implies when not to use (for non-conditional offers) and states a prerequisite (caller must hold the gating token). However, it does not mention other sibling tools like commit_to_conditional_offer_and_redeem_voucher, which could be alternatives.

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