Resolve a conditional-payment agreement: the creator marks 'release' (pay payee) or 'refund' (return to payer); returns a settlement instruction to execute over x402. Send { id, token, outcome, note? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/escrow/resolve]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Escrow id | |
| note | No | Resolution note | |
| token | Yes | Creator secret | |
| outcome | Yes | release or refund |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses payment info ($0.05 fee) and HTTP method/endpoint. No annotations provided; description lacks detail on irreversibility or effect on escrow state. Adequate but not rich.
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 efficient sentences: first explains purpose, second lists input and metadata. No redundant words; front-loaded.
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?
Covers purpose, input, and cost. No output schema; lacks explanation of settlement instruction or result of resolution. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more comprehensive.
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%, so parameters are already documented. Description adds value by listing them and clarifying 'outcome' values ('release or refund'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the action: 'Resolve a conditional-payment agreement' with two specific outcomes ('release' and 'refund'). Distinguishes from siblings like escrow_create and escrow_status.
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?
Explicitly says 'the creator marks' and lists the required input fields. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but context makes it clear.
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.