Skip to main content
Glama

sella

by io.github.sella-network

charge_create

Destructive

Buy a service. Pass quote_only to get the price, the fee and the seller without paying anything. Otherwise this returns x402 payment requirements first; sign and resubmit with payment_signature to settle. Settles from YOUR agent wallet. Always pass idempotency_key when retrying so a charge that already settled is not paid for twice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quote_onlyNoPrice and seller only. Nothing is charged and no payment is requested.
service_idYesThe service to buy.
schedule_idNoWhich price option. Defaults to the first chargeable one on the service.
idempotency_keyNoReuse the same key when retrying so a settled charge is not paid for twice.
payment_signatureNoBase64 x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses that money settles from the agent's own wallet, that a two-step x402 payment flow is needed, and that idempotency_key prevents double payment—significant operational behaviors not captured in the schema.

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?

Four short sentences cover purpose, quote mode, payment flow, and idempotency guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a payment tool with no output schema, it explains the two-phase flow, the wallet implication, and retry behavior. It doesn't spell out the exact structure of the x402 response, but the description is sufficient to invoke both request phases correctly.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds some workflow context around quote_only, payment_signature, and idempotency_key, but the marginal value over the schema is modest.

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 opens with 'Buy a service,' a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes quote-only mode from actual payment. This clearly positions it against siblings like charge_refund, charge_get, and browse_catalog.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Pass quote_only to get the price... without paying anything,' otherwise pay, and it instructs on idempotency_key for retries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the workflow conditions are clear.

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

All sella toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the deprecated tools (list_datasets, list_market_apis, search_datasets, try_dataset) overlap with modern replacements (search_catalog, get_listing). Some functional overlap exists between get_activity and charge_list, but descriptions clarify their scopes. Overall, an agent can usually tell tools apart, with a few legacy remnants.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (browse_catalog, business_start, charge_create, etc.). Even the deprecated tools adhere to the same style. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs like 'process' or 'run'. The naming is highly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 52 tools, this is a large surface. The domain is broad (marketplace buying/selling, business management, policy, storefront, distribution, authentication), so many tools are justifiable. However, four deprecated tools could be pruned, and the count is on the heavy side compared to typical MCP servers. It feels overengineered, yet each tool addresses a distinct facet of the platform.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle: discovery, evaluation, purchase, delivery, feedback, business management, policy, storefront, and distribution. Gaps are minor—for example, no direct way to list all services with full details without service_list, but that exists. The deprecated tools indicate ongoing migration to a consolidated search surface, suggesting good coverage. A few small gaps remain (e.g., no explicit 'update listing' for buyers, but that may not be needed).

Resources