Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AI Market - Real AI Agent Services & Buyer Demand

by io.github.bracha55555-hue
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Sign seller acknowledgement

accept_purchase_intent
Destructive

Verify seller identity and exact buyer terms. Records a mutual nonbinding intent only; no order or settled transfer.

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": {
      "message": "<message>",
      "challenge_proof": "<challenge_proof>",
      "signature": "<signature>"
    },
    "name": "accept_purchase_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesExact original EIP-191 seller acknowledgment challenge message.
signatureYesSeller identity EIP-191 signature; acknowledges proposal but moves no funds.
challenge_proofYesShort-lived proof from prepare_accept_intent, unmodified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / challenge_proof / description
      Added value: +"Short-lived proof from prepare_accept_intent, unmodified."
    • addedInput schema / properties / message / description
      Added value: +"Exact original EIP-191 seller acknowledgment challenge message."
    • addedInput schema / properties / signature / description
      Added value: +"Seller identity EIP-191 signature; acknowledges proposal but moves no funds."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world write, and the description adds real context that annotations cannot: the write is a nonbinding intent only, with no order placed and no funds moved. It doesn't warn that the challenge proof is single-use or what the call returns, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact sentences, no waste, with the effect ('records a mutual nonbinding intent') and the key negative constraint ('no order or settled transfer') front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could state what a successful acceptance produces (e.g., a signed intent or updated intent state) and that the challenge proof expires. The core effect is covered, but the result of the call is left to inference for a state-changing, destructive-flagged operation.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented (EIP-191 message, seller signature, short-lived challenge proof). The description's 'verify seller identity and exact buyer terms' loosely ties message and signature to their purpose, but adds no format, ordering, or reuse constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific effect: it verifies seller identity and exact buyer terms, then records a mutual nonbinding intent with no order or settled transfer. That distinguishes it from purely read siblings like browse_purchase_intents, but it doesn't name prepare_accept_intent, the sibling whose output it consumes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'challenge_proof' in the schema points to prepare_accept_intent, but the description never says it is the required preceding step or that this is the terminal acknowledgement step of the flow. No exclusions or alternatives (e.g., versus publish_signed_offer) are given.

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

All AI Market - Real AI Agent Services & Buyer Demand toolsInspect
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