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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the behavioral nuance that verification is performed independently and on-chain, and enumerates the resulting data fields, without contradicting the 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 front-loaded sentence states purpose and enumerates the useful outputs without filler. 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?
The definition is complete for a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool: purpose, behavior, and output contents are all specified, and an output schema covers return details.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema explicitly states that the owner comes from the authenticated principal. The description therefore carries no parameter burden; a baseline of 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 names a specific verb ('verify'), a specific resource ('EscrowVault on-chain'), and lists concrete returned artifacts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_agent_contract, which targets a different contract.
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 the EscrowVault on-chain' establishes a clear context for use: a read-only confirmation of the deployed vault's identity and details. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives, but zero parameters and the read-only nature reduce ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.