Skip to main content
Glama

agentic-commerce

by io.bosonprotocol

send_native_meta_transaction

Destructive

Relays a native meta-transaction (EIP-712 signed function call) via Biconomy. Requires ABI-encoded function signature and sigR/sigS/sigV from a locally-signed EIP-712 payload. Returns: relay transaction data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sigRYes
sigSYes
sigVYes
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.
signerAddressYesEthereum address that will sign and send this transaction. Must match the wallet that will sign the returned transaction locally.
contractAddressYesValid Ethereum address (e.g. '0xAbCd...' or '0xabcd...'). Mixed-case addresses are checksum-validated; all-lowercase and all-uppercase addresses are also accepted.
functionSignatureYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already set `destructiveHint: true`, so the description adds context about using Biconomy and returning relay transaction data. This goes beyond the annotations, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits 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 sentences front-load the core action and requirements, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value—describing the mechanism and return type.

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 the complexity (7 required params, no output schema), the description covers the main action, prerequisites, and return type. It lacks details on what the relay transaction data contains, but is sufficient for an agent familiar with meta-transactions.

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?

The input schema covers only 43% of parameters with descriptions. The description compensates by explaining that `functionSignature`, `sigR`, `sigS`, and `sigV` come from a locally-signed EIP-712 payload, adding meaning beyond the schema patterns and types.

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 clearly states the action: 'Relays a native meta-transaction (EIP-712 signed function call) via Biconomy.' It uses a specific verb (relays) and resource (native meta-transaction), and distinguishes from sibling tools like `send_meta_transaction` by specifying 'native' and 'via Biconomy'.

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 by requiring 'ABI-encoded function signature and sigR/sigS/sigV from a locally-signed EIP-712 payload,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like `send_meta_transaction` or `send_signed_transaction`. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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