Skip to main content
Glama

agentic-commerce

by io.bosonprotocol

sign_receive_with_erc2612_permit

Read-only

Generates EIP-712 typed data for an EIP-2612 Permit. Authorizes the spender (default: protocol diamond) to pull value from signerAddress until deadline. Sign locally with your wallet (EIP-712); use the resulting signature to build a TransferAuthorization { strategy: 'EIP2612' } for a meta-tx flow. Returns: typed data structure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYesAmount in wei the spender is authorized to pull from the signer.
spenderNoOptional spender address. Defaults to the Boson Protocol diamond from SDK config.
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.
deadlineYesUnix timestamp in seconds after which the permit is no longer valid.
signerAddressYesEthereum address that will sign and send this transaction. Must match the wallet that will sign the returned transaction locally.
tokenDomainNameYesEIP-712 domain name of the token contract (e.g. 'USD Coin'). Required for ERC-3009 / EIP-2612 domain separator.
tokenDomainVersionYesEIP-712 domain version of the token contract (e.g. '2'). Required for ERC-3009 / EIP-2612 domain separator.
exchangeTokenAddressYesERC-20 token contract address that supports the permit/authorization standard.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the description stating it only generates typed data (no state mutation). The description adds value by explaining the expected flow (sign locally, build TransferAuthorization) and the default spender behavior. No contradiction.

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?

The description is a single paragraph of three concise sentences covering purpose, usage, and output. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output, and integration with meta-tx flow. It references get_config_ids for valid configId values. With 8 parameters (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the default spender, the purpose of the typed data, and providing an example format for configId. It goes beyond the schema to clarify usage.

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 it 'Generates EIP-712 typed data for an EIP-2612 Permit', naming the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sign_receive_with_dai_permit, sign_receive_with_erc3009_authorization, and sign_receive_with_permit2 by specifying the standard used.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use the tool: to authorize a spender to pull tokens until a deadline, and how the output is used in a meta-tx flow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit differentiation.

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