Bull OTC

bull_deposit_plan

Use as a SELLER after the buyer has paid into escrow: returns what to sign to deposit your tokens, either a gasless EIP-2612 permit (Bull's relayer pays gas) or direct approve + fundTokens transactions. Fails with not_ready until the buyer has funded. Signed: the first call returns a message to sign; call again with the same arguments plus timestamp and signature.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "quoteId": "<quoteId>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "bull_deposit_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`address`	Yes	Your wallet address (the buyer or seller). Required.
`quoteId`	Yes	Quote id.
`signature`	No	EIP-191 personal_sign of `message` from the previous response. Leave empty on the first call.
`timestamp`	No	From the previous bull_* response. Leave empty on the first call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: gasless permit option with Bull's relayer paying gas, an alternate approve + fundTokens path, the not_ready error, and a two-call sign/retry flow. However it never says what the returned transactions are for or whether the second signed call actually executes the deposit, leaving a mutation-critical question unresolved.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with the role and precondition front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence compresses a multi-step protocol, which is efficient but borders on terse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The schema fully documents the four parameters, but for a multi-step signing flow with no output schema the description should clarify what the return payload looks like and what the signed second call produces. It also does not resolve its relationship to bull_deposit, leaving an agent guessing about the overall deposit sequence.

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, and the description adds real meaning by explaining the sign/retry protocol: first call returns a message, then the same arguments must be resent with timestamp and signature. That clarifies the otherwise confusing optional signature/timestamp fields beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('returns what to sign to deposit your tokens') plus the caller role (SELLER) and precondition (buyer has paid into escrow). It also names the two concrete artifacts returned (EIP-2612 permit vs approve + fundTokens). It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling bull_deposit, so an agent must infer that this plans/builds rather than executes the deposit.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('after the buyer has paid into escrow') and a failure condition ('Fails with not_ready until the buyer has funded'), which is strong routing information. It does not name alternatives such as bull_deposit or state when not to use this tool, but the timing condition effectively excludes premature calls.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Bull OTC tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?