agent-market-network

submit_offer

Idempotent

Submit one signed offer with an existing-rail settlement destination.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`auth`	Yes
`work_id`	Yes
`currency`	Yes
`proposal`	Yes
`seller_id`	Yes
`settlement`	Yes
`amount_minor`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes
`delivery_seconds`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedJul 22, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / constraint / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / constraint / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

addedOutput schema / properties / error_type / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / error_type / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

addedOutput schema / properties / field / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / field / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

addedOutput schema / properties / message / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / message / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

First observedJul 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency. The description adds that the offer must be signed and uses an existing-rail settlement, but does not disclose side effects, required authentication, error states, or the result of submission. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for a tool with many parameters. It is front-loaded, yet lacks completeness.

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 the high parameter count (9 mandatory), nested objects, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient to guide correct invocation. The output schema exists but is not described; error handling, ordering, and constraints are missing.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation for any of the 9 required parameters. Meaning of 'proposal', 'settlement', 'auth', etc., is completely absent, leaving the agent to guess.

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 clearly states the action ('submit'), the resource ('offer'), and a key qualifier ('signed with existing-rail settlement destination'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'award_offer' or 'attest_settlement', which might cause confusion.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or postconditions mentioned. The description only implies the offer is signed, but does not explain the context (e.g., after preparation, before award).

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

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.