List conditional-payment agreements for your token (yours) or a party address (involving that address). Send { token } or { party }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/escrow/list]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| party | No | 0x address involved | |
| token | No | Your creator secret |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals the tool is a paid (x402) operation with a specific endpoint and cost, but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, what happens when both token and party are sent, or any rate limits. The payment information is valuable but incomplete without safety traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences fully convey the tool's purpose and a key usage constraint, with no wasted words. The endpoint and cost are appended cleanly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description tells what the tool does and which parameters to use. However, it omits return format, pagination details for limit, error handling, and behavior when both token and party are sent. It is adequate but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds nuance by suggesting you send either token or party, but this is already implied by the schema's optionality. It does not reduce ambiguity for limit usage or pagination.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The name 'escrow_list' clearly indicates listing escrows. The description specifies listing conditional-payment agreements for a token or party, distinguishing it from sibling tools like escrow_status, escrow_resolve, and escrow_create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use token or party parameters, but does not explicitly contrast with escrow_status (which checks a specific escrow) or specify scenarios where not to use this tool. The 'or' phrasing implies mutual exclusivity, but this could be clearer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.