Bull OTC

bull_reject_quote

Use as a BUYER to reject a quote you do not want. Returns status rejected. Not needed for quotes that simply expire. 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_reject_quote"
  }
}

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the outcome ('Returns status rejected') and the non-obvious two-call signing handshake, including that the first call returns a message to sign and the second needs the identical arguments plus timestamp and signature. It does not state whether rejection is reversible, whether a deal record is affected, or what permissions beyond the buyer role are required.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the role and action, then the return status, then the signing protocol. No filler, and the exclusion clause is placed before the mechanics so an agent can bail out early if it is the wrong tool.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers role, effect ('status rejected'), the exclusion case, and the two-call signing protocol. The main gap is return-payload detail beyond the status string and any downstream effects on the deal, which would matter for an agent chaining calls.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all four parameters, including that signature and timestamp come from the previous bull_* response and stay empty on the first call. The description restates this signing relationship at a workflow level rather than adding parameter-level meaning the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb (reject) with a specific resource (quote) and adds the acting role ('as a BUYER'), so an agent can distinguish this from bull_accept_quote or bull_counter_quote by intent alone. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is mutually exclusive with, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear positive condition ('reject a quote you do not want') and an explicit exclusion ('Not needed for quotes that simply expire'), which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use when the buyer wants to negotiate instead (e.g., countering), leaving that routing to inference.

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?