Skip to main content
Glama

agentic-commerce

by io.bosonprotocol

deposit_funds

Destructive

Deposits ERC-20 or native tokens into an entity's protocol treasury (e.g. seller deposit). For ERC-20, call approve_exchange_token first. Returns unsigned transaction data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesAmount in wei. For ERC-20, approve_exchange_token must be called first. Pass as string.
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.
entityIdYesNumeric ID of the entity to credit. Must match signerAddress's seller account.
tokenAddressYesERC-20 token to deposit. Use address(0) for native ETH.
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?

Discloses that it returns unsigned transaction data (not submitting), destructive nature (deposit), and prerequisite for ERC-20. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but description adds useful context beyond that.

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 filler. First sentence states core purpose, second adds critical prerequisite. Efficient and well-structured.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and complexity of deposits, the description is adequate. It explains the main flow but could elaborate on entity concept or executionMode implications, though schema handles those details.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so description adds minimal extra semantics. It reinforces the need to call approve_exchange_token but doesn't add new meaning beyond what's in the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'deposits' and the resource 'ERC-20 or native tokens into an entity's protocol treasury'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'withdraw_funds' and 'approve_exchange_token' via prerequisite mention.

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 states prerequisite 'call approve_exchange_token first' for ERC-20 and mentions returns unsigned transaction data. Could be improved by explicitly contrasting with withdraw_funds or specifying when to use execution modes.

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