Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

IFSO

by io.github.ifsodev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Prepare a dispute of an x402 conditional payment (unsigned)

ifso_dispute
Read-onlyIdempotent

For the buyer, inside the release window: returns the EIP-712 Decision (action 5, dispute) to sign with the buyer's wallet, and the relay call (POST /v1/v2/vaults/{vault}/dispute with the signature) that sends it with IFSO paying the gas. After a dispute only the referee decides (or the buyer's own OK, or the seller's decline); a silent referee means the money comes back at expiry. This tool never signs.

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": {
      "vault": "<vault>"
    },
    "name": "ifso_dispute"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vaultYesThe payment address.
deadlineNoSignature deadline, unix seconds (default: one hour, at most the window end).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that the tool returns an EIP-712 Decision plus a relay call, that IFSO pays gas, that this tool never signs, and what happens after a dispute. These are substantial behavioral details for a readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent preparation tool.

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?

The description is dense but well front-loaded around the buyer, release window, and unsigned return value. The endpoint and post-dispute details earn their place, though the first sentence is long and could be easier to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns: the EIP-712 object to sign and the relay call that carries the signature. It also covers the key post-dispute outcomes and the no-signing constraint, making it complete for this preparation tool.

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%, and the schema already describes both parameters. The description mentions the vault in the relay endpoint and the release-window context, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for the deadline parameter.

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 action and resource: preparing an unsigned EIP-712 dispute decision and relay call for an x402 conditional payment. It clearly scopes the tool to the buyer inside the release window, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as prepare_payment or release_status.

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 usage condition: "For the buyer, inside the release window." It also explains the post-dispute decision paths, but it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name a better alternative for adjacent workflows.

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

All IFSO 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