Skip to main content
Glama

XDaLa Workflow Builder

by io.github.xgr-network

Create XGR purchase order

create_xgr_purchase_order

Use when the user specifies an exact integer amount_xgr. Call get_xgr_purchase_options first, use payment_assets[].key, collect user-supplied identity and wallet fields, require explicit terms acceptance, and create one live reservation. Pay only from the returned payment_instruction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPurchaser name supplied by the user. Do not invent it.
emailYesPurchaser email supplied by the user. Do not invent it.
amount_xgrYesExact integer XGR amount requested by the user.
xgr_walletYesUser-controlled XGRChain wallet that will receive the purchased XGR.
country_codeYesTwo-letter uppercase country code supplied by the user, for example DE.
payment_assetYesExact payment_assets[].key returned by get_xgr_purchase_options, for example usdc_eth. Do not use the display symbol.
sender_walletNoUser-controlled wallet that will send the stablecoin payment on the listed payment chain. Required when the selected payment asset has requires_sender_wallet=true.
terms_acceptedYesSet to true only after the user explicitly accepts the purchase terms. Never infer or invent acceptance.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesStructured result data returned by the XGR MCP gateway.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds valuable context: it creates a live reservation, requires a pre-call to get_xgr_purchase_options, mandates explicit terms acceptance, and restricts payments to the returned instruction. This goes beyond the annotations but doesn't cover failure modes or reservation expiration.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences front-load the usage condition ('Use when...') and then list the necessary steps in sequence. Every clause adds essential information without waste.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (8 params, financial side effects, a prerequisite call), the description covers the exact-amount scope, the pre-step, user-field collection, terms acceptance, and payment instruction usage. An output schema exists, so return details are unnecessary. It is a complete operational guide.

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% with thorough per-parameter descriptions. The description reinforces the exact integer amount and the payment_asset key source, but these are already in the schema. It doesn't add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('create'), names the resource ('XGR purchase order'), and scopes it with 'exact integer amount_xgr' and 'one live reservation'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create_xgr_purchase_order_by_budget, which would handle budget-based ordering.

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 explicitly states 'Use when the user specifies an exact integer amount_xgr' and provides a required prerequisite ('Call get_xgr_purchase_options first'). It also instructs to pay only from the returned payment_instruction. It doesn't explicitly say 'not for budget-based requests', but the exact-amount condition makes that implicit.

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

All XDaLa Workflow Builder 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are many overlapping session-listing tools (list_xdala_sessions, get_recent_xdala_sessions, find_latest_xdala_session, list_xdala_session_ids, get_latest_session_payload) and duplicate validation tools (validate_xdala_bundle is an alias for validate_xgr_multibundle). Descriptions help but boundaries are still unclear.

Naming Consistency4/5

The verb_noun snake_case pattern is consistent across nearly all tools (get_, list_, create_, cancel_, validate_). Minor inconsistencies include the alias validate_xdala_bundle and interchangeable verbs like get_ vs read_ vs resolve_ for similar read operations.

Tool Count1/5

With 95 tools, this is far beyond the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the sheer number makes the tool surface unwieldy and difficult for an agent to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: handoffs, session queries, transaction exploration, contract reads, validation, gas requests, and purchases. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct workflow editing tools), but overall the surface is remarkably complete.

Resources