agentic-commerce

send_forwarded_meta_transaction

Destructive

Relays a Biconomy forwarded meta-transaction (ERC-20 gas payment). Requires a complete ERC20ForwardRequest and domain separator signature. Returns: relay transaction data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`request`	Yes
`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.
`signature`	Yes
`signerAddress`	Yes	Ethereum address that will sign and send this transaction. Must match the wallet that will sign the returned transaction locally.
`contractAddress`	Yes	Valid Ethereum address (e.g. '0xAbCd...' or '0xabcd...'). Mixed-case addresses are checksum-validated; all-lowercase and all-uppercase addresses are also accepted.
`domainSeparator`	Yes

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds context about Biconomy and ERC-20 payment, but does not disclose potential side effects like gas costs, transaction status, or failure modes.

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 succinct sentences that convey the core functionality and return value without unnecessary words. Excellent front-loading.

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?

Given the complexity (6 required parameters, nested object, no output schema, many siblings), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value structure, error handling, or how this fits into the broader transaction workflow.

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 description coverage is 50%; description adds that 'request' is an ERC20ForwardRequest and 'domainSeparator' is a signature. However, it does not explain the nested fields within 'request' or the exact format of 'signature' and 'domainSeparator', leaving ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Relays' and the resource 'Biconomy forwarded meta-transaction (ERC-20 gas payment)'. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'send_meta_transaction' or 'send_native_meta_transaction', which are also transaction relay tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description mentions prerequisites ('Requires a complete ERC20ForwardRequest and domain separator signature') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, or when not to use it. Given the large sibling set with similar transaction tools, this is a gap.

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?