Skip to main content
Glama
1tylermitchell

Sairen

by 1tylermitchell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

accept_rfp_bid

Accept the winning bid for an RFP to lock in supplier terms, transition the RFP to MATCHED, and close further bidding.

Instructions

    [Free / $0.0000 USDC] Accepts the winning bid for an RFP, locking in the supplier terms,
    transitioning the RFP to MATCHED, and closing further bidding. Free execution.

    Args:
        rfp_id: Target RFP ID.
        bid_id: Winning bid ID to accept.
        buyer_id: EVM wallet address of the RFP creator.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bid_idYes
rfp_idYes
buyer_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main effects (locks terms, transitions to MATCHED, closes bidding) and notes free execution, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, error handling, or requirements (e.g., that buyer_id must be the RFP creator). This is moderate transparency.

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 reasonably concise, front-loading the purpose and then listing arguments. The pricing note is extra but harmless. The structure is clear, though the args section could be integrated more tightly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has no output schema and moderate complexity (state transition with three parameters). The description states the effect but lacks preconditions (e.g., bid must be valid, buyer must be creator) and error scenarios. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a state-changing operation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief but clear meaning for each parameter: rfp_id is 'Target RFP ID', bid_id is 'Winning bid ID to accept', and buyer_id is 'EVM wallet address of the RFP creator'. This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it could include more detail on validation or sources.

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 action: 'Accepts the winning bid for an RFP' and lists specific outcomes (locking terms, transitioning to MATCHED, closing bidding). This is a distinct verb+resource that differentiates it from siblings like submit_rfp_bid or get_rfp_status.

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?

The description implies usage (to accept a winning bid) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_rfp_bid or get_rfp_status. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools