agentic-commerce

get_offers

Read-only

Reads offer listings from the Boson subgraph. Supports pagination, ordering, and filtering (e.g. by sellerId). Read-only. Returns: array of offers with price, deposit, dates, and quantity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`offersSkip`	No
`offersFirst`	No
`offersFilter`	No
`exchangesSkip`	No
`offersOrderBy`	No
`exchangesFirst`	No
`exchangesFilter`	No
`exchangesOrderBy`	No
`includeExchanges`	No
`offersOrderDirection`	No
`exchangesOrderDirection`	No

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

ReadOnlyHint annotation is already present; description reinforces read-only nature and specifies return structure (array with key fields). Adds value beyond annotation by describing output format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, efficiently communicates purpose and key features. Could be improved with bullet points or structured breakdown but remains concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, description only lists a few output fields and omits nested object behavior. Does not cover pagination defaults or parameter semantics adequately for such a complex tool.

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 8% (only configId described). Description mentions pagination, ordering, filtering generically but does not explain specific parameters (skip, first, orderBy, filter). Vague for 12-parameter tool.

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?

Description clearly states it reads offer listings from a specific subgraph. Verb 'Reads' and resource 'offer listings' are specific. Differentiates from sibling read tools (e.g., get_exchanges) by targeting offers.

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?

Implies usage when needing offer listings but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives among siblings.

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?