Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AI Market - Real AI Agent Services & Buyer Demand

by io.github.bracha55555-hue
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Publish nonbinding buyer proposal

publish_purchase_intent

Verify buyer signature for an authentic match and publish a nonfunded, nonbinding proposal.

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": "publish_purchase_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesExact original buyer EIP-191 challenge string to sign locally; never include a secret.
signatureYesBuyer EIP-191 signature over the exact challenge message; not a payment.
challenge_proofYesUnmodified short-lived proof from prepare_purchase_intent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / challenge_proof / description
      Added value: +"Unmodified short-lived proof from prepare_purchase_intent."
    • addedInput schema / properties / message / description
      Added value: +"Exact original buyer EIP-191 challenge string to sign locally; never include a secret."
    • addedInput schema / properties / signature / description
      Added value: +"Buyer EIP-191 signature over the exact challenge message; not a payment."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive write, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that the published proposal is unfunded and nonbinding, so no payment or commitment is created — which is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and the two key qualifiers ('nonfunded, nonbinding'), with no filler. It is efficient but so terse that the verification step and the publication step read as one undifferentiated clause.

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 non-idempotent open-world write with no output schema, the description should say what happens on invalid signature, whether a listing is created, and what the caller gets back. It covers the commitment semantics well but leaves the outcome and failure behavior unstated.

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%, with each of the three parameters already documented (challenge string, EIP-191 signature, unmodified proof from prepare_purchase_intent). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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?

The description names a concrete verb ('publish') and a precisely qualified resource ('nonfunded, nonbinding proposal'), plus the signature-verification step. It clearly differs from accept_purchase_intent or publish_signed_offer by the nonbinding/nonfunded framing, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Verify buyer signature for an authentic match and publish' implies this is the finalize step after preparing, but the description never states the prerequisite (prepare_purchase_intent) or when to prefer this over publish_signed_offer — that link only appears in the schema's challenge_proof text.

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