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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what is returned and that verification is done independently (likely a direct on-chain read). It does not contradict annotations and enriches them with output scope.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key outputs with minimal fluff. Every phrase earns its place.
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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's purpose and output, though it could hint at failure scenarios (e.g., chain unreachable) or when a user should call this instead of related sibling tools.
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's description already explains that no arguments are needed and the owner comes from the authenticated principal. With 100% schema coverage and no params, the description has no additional burden; baseline 4 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?
The description states a specific verb ('verify') and a specific resource ('the EscrowVault on-chain'), and enumerates concrete outputs (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_agent_contract or data_session_attach_escrow, which target different operations.
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 the tool is for on-chain verification checks, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it describe exclusion conditions. Usage context is present but only by implication, not by explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.