agentic-commerce

update_seller

Destructive

Updates an existing seller account. Caller must be the current seller admin (signerAddress). Use get_sellers_by_address to retrieve the seller id first. Returns unsigned transaction data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Numeric ID of the existing seller entity to update. Obtain from get_sellers_by_address.
`kind`	Yes
`name`	No
`type`	Yes
`images`	No
`website`	No
`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.
`authTokenId`	Yes	NFT token ID used as auth token (e.g. Lens profile ID). Pass '0' if not using auth tokens.
`description`	No
`socialLinks`	No
`contactLinks`	No
`authTokenType`	Yes	Auth token type: 0=None, 1=Lens Protocol profile NFT.
`executionMode`	No	'direct' = standard on-chain tx (sign locally with your wallet → send_signed_transaction). 'metaTx' = gasless relay via Biconomy (send_meta_transaction). Defaults to 'direct'.
`salesChannels`	No
`signerAddress`	Yes	Ethereum address that will sign and send this transaction. Must match the wallet that will sign the returned transaction locally.
`legalTradingName`	No
`contactPreference`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that the tool returns unsigned transaction data (indicating no on-chain execution) and requires signerAddress. Adds value beyond annotations by explaining the returned format and caller role.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. Information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 17 parameters, 8 required, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain update behavior, valid fields, error states, or link to related tools beyond prerequisites.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 35%, so description should compensate, but it adds minimal parameter information beyond referencing id from get_sellers_by_address. Most parameters lack context in the description.

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 updates an existing seller account (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes from create_seller and provides prerequisite (get_sellers_by_address). No ambiguity.

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?

Describes caller must be current seller admin (signerAddress) and instructs to use get_sellers_by_address first. Though not explicitly stating when not to use, the prerequisites are clear.

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?