Skip to main content
Glama

agentic-commerce

by io.bosonprotocol

create_dispute_resolution_proposal

Read-only

Generates EIP-712 typed data for a mutual dispute resolution proposal. Both buyer and seller must sign the same buyerPercentBasisPoints value locally with their wallet (EIP-712) before calling resolve_dispute. Returns: typed data structure (domain, types, message).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
exchangeIdYesNumeric ID of the exchange/dispute to act on. Obtain from get_exchanges or the response of commit_to_offer.
signerAddressYesEthereum address that will sign and send this transaction. Must match the wallet that will sign the returned transaction locally.
buyerPercentBasisPointsYesProposed percentage of disputed funds for the buyer, 0–10000 (basis points). The counterparty must sign this same value.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context: the tool generates data to be signed, and both parties must sign before resolve_dispute. No contradictions.

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. Front-loaded with action and returns. Every sentence adds 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?

Describes output as typed data structure, mentions signing requirement. Lacks explicit instructions on how to use the returned data (e.g., calling eth_signTypedData_v4), but sufficient for the tool's purpose.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds process context (e.g., buyerPercentBasisPoints must be signed by counterparty) but does not significantly add beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool generates EIP-712 typed data for a mutual dispute resolution proposal. Mentions prerequisite of both parties signing the same value. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'resolve_dispute' or 'decide_dispute', but purpose is clear.

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?

Explicitly instructs that both buyer and seller must sign the same buyerPercentBasisPoints value before calling resolve_dispute. Provides clear context but does not mention when not to use this tool or 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