Skip to main content
Glama

agentic-commerce

by io.bosonprotocol

resolve_dispute

Destructive

Resolves a dispute by mutual agreement. Workflow: (1) create_dispute_resolution_proposal generates typed data, (2) both parties sign the typed data locally with their wallet (EIP-712), (3) either party submits sigR/sigS/sigV here. Returns unsigned transaction data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sigRYes32-byte R component of the ECDSA resolution signature as 0x-prefixed hex. From the locally-signed EIP-712 signature parameters.
sigSYes32-byte S component as 0x-prefixed hex. From the locally-signed EIP-712 signature parameters.
sigVYesRecovery byte V: 27 or 28. From the locally-signed EIP-712 signature parameters.
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.
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.
buyerPercentBasisPointsYesAgreed buyer share in basis points (0–10000). Both parties must sign the same value. Obtain via create_dispute_resolution_proposal then sign the typed data locally with each party's wallet (EIP-712).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true. Description adds workflow context (local signing, return of unsigned tx data) and clarifies that no direct on-chain action occurs, complementing annotations well.

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: purpose followed by numbered workflow steps. Concise, front-loaded, no redundant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Handles 8 parameters (7 required) well by linking to sibling tools and explaining return value ('unsigned transaction data'). No output schema needed; description covers integration flow.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the origin of sigR/sigS/sigV from local EIP-712 signing, which aids understanding beyond 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?

Description clearly states 'Resolves a dispute by mutual agreement.' and outlines the multi-step workflow, distinguishing it from siblings like decide_dispute or escalate_dispute.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use: after both parties sign typed data locally, and that either party submits signatures. References create_dispute_resolution_proposal as prerequisite, providing clear usage context.

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