agentic-commerce

create_seller

Destructive

Creates a seller account on Boson Protocol. Required before creating any offers. signerAddress is automatically set as admin, assistant, and treasury. Provide seller metadata and royaltyPercentage. Returns unsigned transaction data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes
`name`	No
`type`	Yes
`images`	No
`website`	No
`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.
`authTokenId`	Yes	NFT token ID used as auth token (e.g. Lens profile ID). Pass '0' if not using auth tokens.
`contractUri`	Yes	URI for OpenSea-style storefront metadata. Can be IPFS URI or empty string.
`description`	No
`socialLinks`	No
`contactLinks`	No
`authTokenType`	Yes	Auth token type: 0=None, 1=Lens Protocol profile NFT.
`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'.
`salesChannels`	No
`signerAddress`	Yes	Ethereum address that will sign and send this transaction. Must match the wallet that will sign the returned transaction locally.
`legalTradingName`	No
`contactPreference`	Yes
`royaltyPercentage`	Yes	Default resale royalty in basis points (0–10000). Applied to all offers unless overridden.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true; description adds that it returns unsigned transaction data and sets roles automatically. This goes beyond annotations. Missing details on idempotency or error behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers essential usage context (required before offers, return type) but lacks details on output format, error conditions, and parameter relationships. For a complex 18-param tool with no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 39%, but the description only mentions 'seller metadata' and 'royaltyPercentage' without explaining the 9 required parameters like authTokenId, configId, or contactPreference. Does not compensate adequately for schema gaps.

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 ('Creates'), the resource ('seller account on Boson Protocol'), and provides context ('Required before creating any offers'). It also mentions automatic role assignment and return type, distinguishing it from siblings like create_buyer and update_seller.

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 says 'Required before creating any offers,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. Also notes automatic role assignment. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives (e.g., update_seller), given many sibling tools.

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?