Skip to main content
Glama

agentic-commerce

by io.bosonprotocol

commit_to_offer

Destructive

Commits to an offer, creating an exchange and minting a voucher NFT. Caller is the buyer (signerAddress) unless 'buyer' param is set. For ERC-20 offers, call approve_exchange_token first. Returns unsigned transaction data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buyerNoOptional buyer address if different from signerAddress. When set, executionMode must be 'direct'.
offerIdYesID of the active offer to commit to. Creates an exchange and mints a voucher NFT.
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds value by detailing the actual outcomes (creating exchange, minting voucher) and specifying that the return is unsigned transaction data. This provides behavioral context beyond the 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: the first states the core action and result, the second adds crucial usage conditions and return type. No filler words. Every sentence carries meaningful guidance, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 an output schema, the description adequately explains that unsigned transaction data is returned. It also covers a key prerequisite (approve_exchange_token). However, it does not mention the executionMode parameter, though the schema covers it. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a mutation tool with well-documented parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds semantic value by explaining the side effects of the 'buyer' parameter (overrides signerAddress) and prescribing the prerequisite action for ERC-20 tokens. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Commits to'), names the resource ('offer'), and specifies outcomes ('creating an exchange and minting a voucher NFT'). It distinguishes from siblings like commit_to_conditional_offer by mentioning the optional 'buyer' parameter and the prerequisite for ERC-20 offers. This clearly communicates the tool's net effect.

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 clear context: caller is the buyer unless 'buyer' is set, and for ERC-20 offers, approve_exchange_token must be called first. However, it does not explicitly exclude use when alternatives like commit_to_buyer_offer or commit_to_conditional_offer might be more appropriate. Thus it lacks explicit when-not guidance or sibling comparisons.

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