Independently verify the EscrowVault on-chain: returns its address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, and a short ABI summary (deposit/release/verify signatures).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| rpc_url | No | ||
| chain_id | No | ||
| configured | Yes | ||
| usdc_token | No | ||
| abi_summary | No | ||
| explorer_url | No | ||
| verify_recipe | No | ||
| contract_address | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by indicating that verification is performed independently on-chain and by specifying the exact set of returned data, giving the agent confidence about what will happen.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action first ('Independently verify the EscrowVault on-chain') and then lists the outputs in a compact, readable list. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations already provided, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, how it behaves (independent on-chain verification), and what data it will receive. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema already fully documents the input contract. The description adds no parameter guidance, which is acceptable because there are no arguments to explain. The baseline of 4 applies since no parameters exist and nothing is missing.
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 description uses a specific verb ('verify'), names the exact resource ('EscrowVault on-chain'), and enumerates the concrete outputs (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary). This clearly differentiates it from any sibling tool that might perform a different kind of contract operation.
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 phrase 'Independently verify' provides clear context that this tool performs a direct on-chain check rather than relying on cached data, and the description makes it obvious when to call it. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but no competing sibling is apparent and the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.