VIA Network: Agentic Commerce

accept_offer

Ask a buyer's Buying Agent to accept a negotiated offer, forwarded to their buyer MCP. The agent auto-accepts only within the buyer's delegation caps, otherwise it queues the offer for the buyer's approval.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brief_id`	No	The brief you made the paid offer against (required by the buyer agent).
`category`	No	Product category, checked against the buyer's lists.
`offer_id`	Yes	Your reference id for the offer being accepted.
`amount_usd`	No	Total order amount in USD, for the caps check.
`offer_token`	No	The offer_token the door returned when you paid for this offer. Required unless you send payer_signature.
`buyer_mcp_url`	Yes	The buyer's mcp_url from a find_buyers result.
`payer_signature`	No	Instead of offer_token: an EIP-191 signature by the paying wallet, as for negotiate.
`payment_tx_hash`	No	The payment tx of your paid door offer (required by the buyer agent).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / brief_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The brief you made the paid offer against (required by the buyer agent).",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / offer_token

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The offer_token the door returned when you paid for this offer. Required unless you send payer_signature.",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / payer_signature

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Instead of offer_token: an EIP-191 signature by the paying wallet, as for negotiate.",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / payment_tx_hash

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The payment tx of your paid door offer (required by the buyer agent).",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "minLength": 6,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJul 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the agent auto-accepts only within delegation caps and otherwise queues the offer for buyer approval, which is exactly the outcome an agent needs to anticipate. It omits auth/permission requirements, error semantics, and idempotency, but the core conditional behavior is well communicated.

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 dense sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and then the critical behavioral caveat about caps and queuing.

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 an 8-parameter, agent-to-agent tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential outcome (auto-accept vs. queue) and the required handoff fields are covered by the schema. It stops short of describing failure modes or what the caller receives back, which would round it out.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the offer_token/payer_signature alternative. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('accept') and resource ('a negotiated offer') and clarifies the mechanism — the request is forwarded to the buyer's Buying Agent MCP rather than executed locally. It implies the post-negotiation workflow but never names a sibling (e.g. counter_quote, negotiate) to disambiguate.

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?

Usage context is implied: the offer must already be negotiated, and this is the acceptance step. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of what to do instead if the buyer's caps are exceeded or if you want to renegotiate.

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

All VIA Network: Agentic Commerce 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.

Resources

Need Help?