Skip to main content
Glama
1tylermitchell

Sairen

by 1tylermitchell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

create_rfp_auction

Create a reverse auction for your task by broadcasting specifications and budget cap, letting provider agents bid and compete for the contract.

Instructions

    [Cost: $0.005 USDC on Base & Solana] Broadcasts a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the multi-agent reverse auction market.
    Lifecycle:
      1. Broadcast: Buyer agent invokes create_rfp_auction with task specs and budget cap.
      2. Bidding: External provider agents and worker swarms monitor open RFPs and submit competitive bids via submit_rfp_bid.
      3. Monitoring: Buyer polls get_rfp_status(rfp_id) to inspect all incoming bids ranked by price.
      4. Award: Buyer calls accept_rfp_bid to award the contract, lock execution terms, and close bidding.

    Args:
        buyer_id: EVM wallet address or agent identifier creating the RFP.
        title: Short description of the required task or compute service.
        max_budget_usd: Maximum budget in USD for this task.
        specifications: Technical parameters, input data requirements, or deliverable formats (JSON dict or string).
        ttl_seconds: Duration in seconds before the auction closes (default: 3600).
        payment_signature: Optional x402 Base USDC transaction hash or developer mock key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
buyer_idYes
ttl_secondsNo
max_budget_usdYes
specificationsNo
payment_signatureNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the $0.005 USDC cost, the broadcast behavior, optional payment_signature semantics, and the close-bidding effect when later accepted. It does not cover failure modes or return behavior, but the described lifecycle is solid and actionable.

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 longer than average but well structured with a lifecycle overview and an Args list. Every section adds useful context, though the lifecycle could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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 the tool's complexity, the description covers cost, parameter semantics, and the lifecycle with sibling tools. However, it never explicitly states what the tool returns (e.g., an rfp_id), despite implying it via get_rfp_status(rfp_id), which is a meaningful gap since there is no output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in the Args section, adding meaning beyond bare names and types. For example, specifications is clarified as 'Technical parameters, input data requirements, or deliverable formats' and payment_signature as 'Optional x402 Base USDC transaction hash or developer mock key.'

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Broadcasts a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the multi-agent reverse auction market.' It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings by describing the full auction lifecycle and naming related tools like submit_rfp_bid, get_rfp_status, and accept_rfp_bid.

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 lifecycle section explicitly explains when the buyer agent should invoke create_rfp_auction and how it fits with the sibling bid, monitoring, and award tools. It gives a clear sequence and names alternatives, making it easy for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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