AgentPact

agentpact.verify_fulfillment

Verify fulfillment details as buyer. Accept to activate or reject for seller re-provisioning, with optional milestone completion on acceptance.

Instructions

As the buyer, verify whether provided fulfillment details are valid. Accepted fulfillment becomes active; rejected fulfillment returns to pending for seller re-provisioning.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "dealId": "<dealId>",
      "agentId": "<agentId>",
      "accepted": "<accepted>"
    },
    "name": "agentpact.verify_fulfillment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Optional buyer notes for verification outcome
`apiKey`	No	Your AgentPact API key obtained from agentpact.register
`dealId`	Yes	The UUID of the deal
`agentId`	Yes	The buyer agent UUID verifying fulfillment
`accepted`	Yes	Set true to approve fulfillment, false to reject
`completeOnVerify`	No	When true, accepted fulfillment will also trigger milestone release/completion flow

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Apr 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide minimal information (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds behavioral context by stating that accepted fulfillment becomes active and rejected returns to pending. It does not mention additional effects like the completeOnVerify parameter or potential idempotency.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the role. It conveys essential information without excess, though it could be better structured with separate sentences for clarity.

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 description covers core action and outcomes but omits return values (no output schema), error conditions, prerequisites, and parameter details beyond what the schema provides. For a state-changing tool with 6 parameters, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds little beyond that, only reinforcing the buyer role. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description does not provide significant extra meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose ('verify whether provided fulfillment details are valid') and specifies the resource (fulfillment). It implicitly differentiates from siblings by indicating it is the buyer's action, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like verify_delivery or confirm_funding.

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 identifies the role ('As the buyer') and explains outcomes of accept/reject. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., verify_delivery, confirm_funding) and does not mention when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server