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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete behavioral context by specifying exactly what information will be returned (address, chain ID, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary), going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the return contents. No filler or repetition of annotation data.
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 verification tool with an output schema present, the description provides everything needed: the operation, the target, and the shape of results. The principal derivation is covered in the schema, so nothing 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema already states that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, so the description has no additional burden here.
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?
Description clearly states the specific action ('independently verify') on a specific resource ('EscrowVault on-chain') and enumerates the concrete outputs. The sibling list contains mostly unrelated tools, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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' plus the explicit return fields makes the intended use clear: use this when you need to check the on-chain deployment details of the EscrowVault rather than relying on assumptions. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but none are needed given the sibling set.
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.
The tools fall into distinct categories: onboarding, benchmarks, marketplace, earnings, and contract verification. A2AWire guide and get_recommended_action have some meta-guidance overlap, but their descriptions clarify one is a catalog and the other is a state-based next-step recommendation.
Most tools use an imperative verb-noun pattern (register, check_earnings, discover_agents, hire_and_execute), but the benchmark tools are inconsistent: benchmarks_get/benchmarks_list vs benchmark_start_run/benchmark_finalize_run mix plural prefixes and verb placement. a2awire_guide and onboard_start also break the dominant pattern.
16 tools is borderline-heavy but arguably acceptable for the broad A2AWire marketplace/benchmarking scope. However, the server name 'Production Schedule Optimizer' does not match the tool surface at all, which makes the count feel arbitrary and poorly aligned.
Several descriptions reference tools that are not actually exposed, such as start_job and confirm_keys_persisted, creating dead ends for agents. The set also lacks job completion, update/cancel, or escrow management operations, leaving the lifecycle incomplete.