Skip to main content
Glama

Accept an offer and sell the player

accept_offer
Destructive

Sell a player by accepting an incoming offer. The transfer takes effect at once and cannot be undone, so verify the player and offered price first.

Instructions

Accept an offer for one of the manager's players, selling them.

This cannot be undone. Unlike a bid, which queues until the transfer round and can be withdrawn, an acceptance takes effect the moment it is made. The player leaves the squad and there is nothing to reverse it with.

Get the user's explicit agreement first, and tell them two things before asking: who is being sold, and how the price compares to what the player is worth. get_offers reports that as premium and premium_pct — a negative value means the offer is below the player's market value, which is common and easy to miss.

Ids come from get_offers; only offers whose direction is incoming can be accepted. The player and the price are taken from the offer itself, never passed in, so what is accepted is exactly what was offered.

Check ok and message in the result. Comunio can report overall success while rejecting the acceptance itself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offer_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether Comunio accepted this particular acceptance
buyerNoWho bought the player
priceYesWhat was received for them, in euros
playerNoThat player's name
messageNoComunio's reason, when it gives one
premiumYesPrice minus the player's quoted value. Negative means sold below what they were worth.
offer_idYesThe offer that was accepted
player_idYesPlayer who has left the squad
premium_pctYesThe same difference as a percentage
applied_immediatelyYesTrue for an acceptance: it takes effect at once and cannot be reversed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes far beyond: it explains the action cannot be undone, takes effect immediately (unlike queued bids), and warns that Comunio can report overall success while rejecting the acceptance (check `ok` and `message`). These are critical behavioral nuances not present in annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the purpose is in the first sentence, followed immediately by the irreversible warning, then a logical flow covering user guidance, source of IDs, and result checking. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description is complete for a single-parameter irreversible action. It covers the parameter source and constraints, the user consent procedure, the premium info needed for user communication, and the correct interpretation of the result (`ok`/`message`). Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema only defines `offer_id` with no description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by stating IDs come from `get_offers` and only incoming offers are acceptable. It also clarifies the player and price are taken from the offer itself, not passed separately, so the semantics of the single parameter are fully explained. A 4 is appropriate because it doesn't re-explain the primitive type but gives all necessary context.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Accept an offer for one of the manager's players, selling them.' It actively differentiates from sibling tools like place_bid/withdraw_bid by contrasting with a bid ('Unlike a bid...'), so an agent can immediately know this is the accept action, not a bid action.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Get the user's explicit agreement first' and tells the agent what to tell the user (who is sold and how price compares via premium/premium_pct). It also states a clear precondition: only offers with direction 'incoming' can be accepted, and warns about the irreversible nature and the need to check result fields.

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