Skip to main content
Glama

VIA Network: Agentic Commerce

by xyz.getvia.app

confirm_purchase

Settle a network-MEMBER (e.g. RRG) purchase after you have sent the USDC that buy_product asked for. This is the member two-step: buy_product returns a pay-to address and amount, you transfer USDC on Base, then call this with the tx hash to mint, pay out, and get your download. For physical products include the shipping block and buyer_email. VIA-native purchases do NOT use this: they settle at the /api/x402/purchase endpoint that buy_product returns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tx_hashYesThe USDC transfer transaction hash on Base.
shippingNoRequired for physical member products.
product_idYesThe member listing/token id (mcp_ref.token_id).
buyer_emailNoFor order confirmation and file delivery. Required for physical products.
buyer_walletYesThe wallet that sent the USDC.
selected_sizeNoThe size you chose at buy_product (must match).
buyer_agent_idNoYour ERC-8004 agent id, for an on-chain trust signal.
selected_colorNoThe colour you chose at buy_product (must match).
seller_mcp_urlYesThe member seller_mcp_url you called buy_product on.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-step process, the mint/payout/download flow, and special requirements for physical products. However, it does not detail potential failure modes or recoverability.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loading the main action and then providing key details. It is fairly concise, though a bit dense; slight restructuring could improve readability.

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?

Given no output schema and a complex tool with 9 parameters including a nested object, the description covers prerequisites, workflow, and special cases. It does not explain error handling or return values, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the role of tx_hash (USDC transaction), buyer_wallet (sender), selected_size and selected_color (must match buy_product), and buyer_email (required for physical products). This context greatly aids parameter understanding.

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's purpose: settling a network-MEMBER purchase after sending USDC. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly stating that VIA-native purchases do not use this tool, and it references the prerequisite buy_product call.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use: after sending USDC and calling buy_product. It also states when not to use: for VIA-native purchases. Alternatives are implied (e.g., the /api/x402/purchase endpoint).

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 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (discovery, purchasing, negotiation, seller management, taste/intent). Some overlap exists, e.g., multiple ways to get product details, but descriptions clarify distinct use cases. A few tools like find_buyers and get_buyer_briefs might be confused at first glance but have different inputs.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., find_seller, buy_product, get_shipping_quote. The outlier is seller_mcp_url which starts with a noun instead of a verb, and negotiate is a bare verb but fits. Overall consistent with minor deviations.

Tool Count3/5

28 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the domain is complex (agentic commerce covering discovery, purchasing, negotiation, seller registration, etc.). The count is borderline heavy but reasonable for the breadth of functionality.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers major aspects of agentic commerce: search, buying, negotiation, shipping, digital delivery, seller onboarding, and taste/intent. Missing features like order tracking or store updates are minor gaps; core workflows are well-supported.

Resources