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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the tool performs an independent on-chain verification and returns a live snapshot of the contract's address, network info, and ABI summary. No contradictions with the annotations are present.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Independently verify') and then lists the valuable return fields. Every word adds information, and there is no filler or duplication of schema content.
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 a rich output schema and complete annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what is verified, how independent it is, and what the caller will receive. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke this tool.
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, and the input schema already documents that no arguments are required and that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to explain, the description owes nothing further; this is the appropriate baseline for a zero-parameter tool.
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 lists the concrete outputs the agent can expect (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary). This is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like get_agent_contract or data_session_attach_escrow, which address different contracts or actions.
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' implies this is the tool to use when a direct, unmediated on-chain check of the EscrowVault is needed. However, the description never states when to use this over alternatives such as get_agent_contract, nor does it mention any when-not-to-use scenarios. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.