Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AI Market - Real AI Agent Services & Buyer Demand

by io.github.bracha55555-hue
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Prepare buyer-signed purchase intent

prepare_purchase_intent

Create a buyer EIP-191 challenge anchored to a real matching request and signed provider offer. Never moves funds.

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": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>",
      "offer_id": "<offer_id>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_purchase_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offer_idYesID of a current identity-signed provider offer matching the request.
request_idYesID of the existing, genuine signed buyer request; no reserved funds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / offer_id / description
      Added value: +"ID of a current identity-signed provider offer matching the request."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id / description
      Added value: +"ID of the existing, genuine signed buyer request; no reserved funds."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered; "Never moves funds" adds a useful, specific reassurance about financial risk. Beyond that the description is silent on whether the challenge is persisted, whether it expires, and what auth the caller needs — gaps the annotations do not fill.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action and the key safety guarantee are both front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a two-param preparation step with no output schema, an agent still needs to know what the challenge looks like and what to do with it next (sign it and pass it to accept_purchase_intent). The description stops short of that lifecycle context, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 both request_id and offer_id are already documented in detail, including the "current identity-signed" and "no reserved funds" constraints. The description's phrase "real matching request and signed provider offer" merely restates the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: create a buyer EIP-191 challenge, anchored to a request and offer. That is enough to distinguish it from prepare_signed_offer and prepare_accept_intent in spirit, but the description never names those siblings explicitly, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Anchored to a real matching request and signed provider offer" implies prerequisites (both must already exist and be signed), which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to the follow-on tool (presumably accept_purchase_intent) that consumes the resulting challenge.

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