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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond that by explaining the tool performs an active on-chain verification and outlining the response payload, including the ABI summary. No contradiction with annotations.
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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Independently verify...') and then lists outputs efficiently with no filler. Every word contributes value.
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, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what action is performed and exactly what data to expect. 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?
Zero parameters means there is no ambiguity to clarify, and the schema already states that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. According to the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is fully adequate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Independently verify the EscrowVault on-chain.' It enumerates the exact returned information (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary), making the tool's function unmistakable and distinct from a generic contract lookup.
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 implies usage for independently verifying the EscrowVault on-chain, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like get_agent_contract, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is reasonable but left to inference.
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.
Several tools occupy nearly identical roles, especially data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow, which all describe funding an opened session. The guidance pair a2awire_guide/get_recomm ended_action and onboarding pair register/onboard_start also blur boundaries. An agent would frequently need to read fine-grained details to pick the correct tool.
Most tools use snake_case and the data_session_* group provides some consistency, but conventions mix: a2awire_guide is a noun, register is a bare verb, and onboard_start/hire_and_execute/verify_contract follow different verb patterns. It remains readable, but it is not a uniform verb_noun system.
16 tools is at the heavy end for a focused per-query data listing flow, and the funding step is represented by three overlapping tools plus two guidance-oriented tools. A leaner set around the data_session lifecycle plus the needed marketplace hooks would be more appropriate.
The core buy-per-query flow (register, preview, open, fund, query, check earnings) is present, but there are notable gaps: no session status/remaining-queries tool, no close/refund path, and only one data listing is exposed. The extra A2AWire tools hint at a broader marketplace but omit obvious lifecycle pieces such as listing management or job posting.