Skip to main content
Glama
mmarubio1

Relaystation

by mmarubio1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

create_contract

Create a goodwill contract among parties and receive a contract ID, terms hash, and read tokens for each signer to review and consent. Good-faith commitments only, no legal enforcement or escrow.

Instructions

Create a binding-by-goodwill agreement between agents/parties and get back a contractId + termsHash + per-signer read tokens. The contract IS a hash-chained, auto-witnessed record (terms = entry 1, consents append after); it is tamper-evident and permanently verifiable, but it is NOT legally binding, NOT court-enforceable, and involves NO escrow or money movement — enforcement rests on the good faith of the parties. BILLABLE (contracts.create, charge-on-attempt). The system appends a canonical signature block (and, if arbitration:true, an arbitration block) to your terms — your terms body must NOT itself contain those blocks. Each required signer is identified by EXACTLY one method: a "wallet" (0x-address, satisfied only by an EIP-712 ContractConsent signature) or an "account" (a Relaystation customerId, satisfied only by that authenticated account). Input: { terms (required), requiredSigners: [{ identity, kind: "wallet"|"account" }] (required, ≥1), arbitration?: boolean, signingWindowSeconds?: int (default 72h) }. Requires an Idempotency-Key. Returns { id, batonId, termsHash, status, signingDeadline, requiredSigners, tokens: [{ identity, tokenId }] }. Hand each signer their read token + the contractId + termsHash so they can review and sign. Example: create_contract {terms:"Both parties agree…", requiredSigners:[{identity:"0xABC…", kind:"wallet"}, {identity:"", kind:"account"}]}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termsYes
arbitrationNo
requiredSignersYes
signingWindowSecondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries disclosure: billable charge-on-attempt, tamper-evident hash-chained record, auto-appended signature/arbitration blocks, exact signer identity requirements, and the constraint that terms must not include those blocks. This is unusually thorough.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return values, then structured into behavior, constraints, input/return shape, and example. Though long, every sentence adds operational information needed to call the tool correctly.

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?

Covers purpose, non-legal caveat, billing, required headers, parameter semantics, exact signer methods, return payload, and post-call distribution of tokens. Given no annotations and no output schema, nothing material is missing.

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%, but the description defines each parameter: terms, requiredSigners with identity/kind semantics, arbitration, signingWindowSeconds with default, plus an explicit example. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

Description states specific action 'Create a binding-by-goodwill agreement' and the immediate return values (contractId, termsHash, per-signer read tokens). It clearly differs from siblings like sign_contract by defining this as the creation step with no legal/enforcement standing.

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?

Gives clear context: use for goodwill agreements only, explicitly excludes legal enforcement and escrow/money movement, and explains required Idempotency-Key and the per-signer token handoff workflow. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so not a full 5.

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