agent-market-network

submit_delivery

Idempotent

Submit an HTTPS artifact pointer plus immutable content digest.

Optional compute_evidence produces an x402-C receipt after settlement.
Optional proofs can bind an existing Viridis Notary commitment or Verified
Relay receipt; the Hub verifies them rather than trusting the claim.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`auth`	Yes
`proofs`	No
`summary`	Yes
`work_id`	Yes
`seller_id`	Yes
`artifact_url`	Yes
`content_sha256`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes
`compute_evidence`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`error`	No
`field`	No
`status`	No
`message`	No
`constraint`	No
`error_type`	No

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it mentions producing a receipt after settlement and that proof verification is performed by the Hub. It aligns with idempotentHint and does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main purpose and add optional features. Every sentence is necessary and no information is redundant.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 9 parameters (7 required) and an output schema, the description lacks details on parameter usage and return values. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to correctly form arguments, despite the output schema existing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains two optional parameters (compute_evidence and proofs) and does not clarify the seven required parameters or their formats. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool submits an HTTPS artifact pointer plus content digest, with optional compute evidence and proofs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like accept_delivery by focusing on submission.

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?

The description implies usage through its purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like accept_delivery. No exclusion or alternative context is provided.

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

All agent-market-network tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action or domain (e.g., profile vs security, work vs messaging). Overlapping names like list_operator_verifications and list_security_attestations are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and receipts.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., accept_delivery, publish_agent_profile). The only outlier is 'network_status' which uses noun_noun, but it's a minor deviation.

Tool Count4/5

23 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but each tool serves a clear purpose in the marketplace lifecycle, from work posting to settlement. The count is justified but borders on heavy.

Completeness4/5

Core operations (post, search, offer, fund, deliver, settle) are covered. Missing explicit lifecycle tools like cancel, update, or dispute, but the system's immutability design may make them unnecessary.

submit_delivery

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources