agentic-commerce

sign_receive_with_erc3009_authorization

Read-only

Generates EIP-712 typed data for an ERC-3009 ReceiveWithAuthorization (e.g. USDC). Authorizes the spender (default: protocol diamond) to pull value from signerAddress between validAfter and validBefore. Sign locally with your wallet (EIP-712); use the resulting signature + nonce to build a TransferAuthorization { strategy: 'ERC3009' } for a meta-tx flow. Returns: typed data structure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`value`	Yes	Amount in wei the spender is authorized to pull from the signer.
`spender`	No	Optional spender address. Defaults to the Boson Protocol diamond from SDK config.
`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.
`validAfter`	Yes	Unix timestamp in seconds before which the authorization is not valid.
`validBefore`	Yes	Unix timestamp in seconds after which the authorization is no longer valid.
`signerAddress`	Yes	Ethereum address that will sign and send this transaction. Must match the wallet that will sign the returned transaction locally.
`tokenDomainName`	Yes	EIP-712 domain name of the token contract (e.g. 'USD Coin'). Required for ERC-3009 / EIP-2612 domain separator.
`tokenDomainVersion`	Yes	EIP-712 domain version of the token contract (e.g. '2'). Required for ERC-3009 / EIP-2612 domain separator.
`exchangeTokenAddress`	Yes	ERC-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?

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it generates typed data and requires local signing, not performing an on-chain write. It adds valuable behavioral context about the subsequent meta-tx flow.

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 concise with two sentences. The first defines the purpose, and the second provides usage steps. No redundant information.

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 purpose, parameters, and usage flow. It could mention the need for an EIP-712 compatible wallet, but overall it provides sufficient context for a tool generating local signing data.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the spender default behavior and directing users to get_config_ids for valid configId values, enhancing understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool generates EIP-712 typed data for ERC-3009 ReceiveWithAuthorization, specifying the token (e.g., USDC). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sign_receive_with_dai_permit by focusing on the ERC-3009 standard.

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 the workflow: sign locally and then use the signature with nonce for a meta-tx flow. It provides context for when to use but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance.

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?