Skip to main content
Glama

agentic-commerce

by io.bosonprotocol

expire_dispute_batch

Destructive

Marks multiple expired disputes in one transaction. All exchanges must be in 'Disputed' state past their respective timeouts. Permissionless. Returns unsigned transaction data.

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.
exchangeIdsYesArray of exchange IDs whose dispute period has passed. All must be in 'Disputed' state past their timeout.
signerAddressYesEthereum address that will sign and send this transaction. Must match the wallet that will sign the returned transaction locally.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructive=true), the description adds preconditions (exchanges must be in 'Disputed' state past timeouts), permissionless access, and return type (unsigned transaction data). This provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the action and scope, 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 no output schema, the description mentions the return type (unsigned tx data). Preconditions are stated. Could include error scenarios or batch behavior, but overall sufficient for a clear tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it restates the precondition for exchangeIds but no additional parameter details.

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 ('Marks') and resource ('expired disputes') and clearly indicates this is a batch operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like expire_dispute (single) and expire_escalated_dispute by specifying batch and transaction context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for multiple disputes but does not explicitly contrast with expire_dispute or when-not-to-use. It states 'Permissionless' but lacks guidance on trade-offs between batch and single calls.

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