@agirails/mcp-server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

agirails_dispute

Destructive

Dispute a transaction when delivery fails to match covenants. Generate TypeScript code that posts a 5% bond for oracle-based resolution within 24-72 hours.

Instructions

Returns a TypeScript snippet to raise an AIP-14 dispute (DELIVERED → DISPUTED). The generated code posts a 5% bond; oracle-resolved within 24-72 hours. Use when delivery does not match the covenant/deliverables.

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": {
      "txId": "<txId>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "agirails_dispute"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`txId`	Yes	Transaction ID returned by agirails_request_service or agirails_list_transactions
`reason`	Yes	Why you are disputing this transaction. Be specific; this goes on-chain.
`network`	No		testnet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description clarifies the tool only returns a code snippet, not directly mutating state. It adds context about the 5% bond and 24-72 hour oracle resolution, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows naturally.

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?

The description adequately explains what the tool returns (a TypeScript snippet) and when to use it. However, it lacks details on how to handle the snippet (e.g., execution), but for a code generation tool, this is acceptable. No output schema exists, so the description bears the burden.

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 67% (txId and reason have descriptions; network only has enum). The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline with minimal extra value.

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 it returns a TypeScript snippet to raise an AIP-14 dispute, specifying the state transition and bond details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agirails_settle or agirails_deliver.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use when delivery does not match the covenant/deliverables,' providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly explain when not to use it, but the context implies alternatives like settle are for matching deliveries.

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