Bull OTC

bull_send_quote

Use when you want to SELL tokens to a buyer who posted an RFQ: sends a sealed quote (token amount and total ETH price) that only the buyer sees. Returns a quoteId. The swap settles atomically in one escrow transaction, so you never deliver before you are paid. Not for listing prices publicly. 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": {
      "rfqId": "<rfqId>",
      "tokens": "<tokens>",
      "price": "<price>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "bull_send_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`price`	Yes	Total price in ETH, e.g. "0.25".
`rfqId`	Yes	RFQ id.
`dryRun`	No	true = only check the request, nothing is created. Optional.
`payout`	No	Wallet that receives the payment (optional).
`tokens`	Yes	Token amount, e.g. "1000".
`address`	Yes	Your wallet address (the buyer or seller). Required.
`webhook`	No	https URL that receives events: quote.countered, quote.accepted, quote.rejected, deal.buyer_funded, deal.settled (optional).
`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.
`idempotencyKey`	No	Unique key (8-64 characters) so a retry never creates a duplicate. Optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: sealed/private visibility to the buyer, atomic escrow settlement with no pay-before-deliver risk, a returned quoteId, and critically the two-step signed flow (first call returns a message to sign; retry with timestamp and signature). It omits failure modes such as expired or already-filled RFQs, and says nothing about the webhook event lifecycle beyond what the schema documents.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case and the visibility guarantee, then the settlement guarantee, then the signing protocol — a sensible ordering with no filler. The final 'Signed:' sentence is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries operational 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is created, who sees it, the signing handshake, and the returned identifier. It could do more on idempotency/retry expectations and error conditions, but nothing an agent needs to make a first call is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including dryRun, payout, webhook, idempotencyKey, timestamp and signature is already documented in structured data. The description restates the two core fields (token amount, total ETH price) and clarifies the signing sequence, which is moderate added value rather than new semantics.

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: 'sends a sealed quote (token amount and total ETH price)' for a buyer who posted an RFQ, and notes it returns a quoteId. It carves out the negative case ('Not for listing prices publicly') but never names the adjacent siblings (bull_counter_quote, bull_revise_quote), so the initial-quote vs. counter-quote distinction must be inferred.

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 a clear triggering condition ('Use when you want to SELL tokens to a buyer who posted an RFQ') and one explicit exclusion (public price listing). It does not explicitly say when to prefer bull_counter_quote or bull_revise_quote instead, so an agent facing an existing quote must reason from the name alone.

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?