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 establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that verification is independent and on-chain, which is helpful, but it does not disclose potential pitfalls such as network dependency, response variability, or what 'independently' verifies against. This is adequate but not rich.
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 that states the action, the target, and the key output items without repetition or filler. Every part 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?
Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It enumerates all expected return categories. It could add a brief note about when verification is needed, but that is more of a usage-guidance enhancement than a missing requirement.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the empty input. The description's note about the owner being derived from the authenticated principal is unnecessary but harmless. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless 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 names a specific verb ('verify'), a specific resource ('EscrowVault on-chain'), and lists precisely what is returned (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_earnings or data_preview.
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' implies this tool is for confirming contract trustworthiness, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
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 hazy boundaries: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all concern session payment/funding, and a2awire_guide overlaps with get_recommended_action as a navigation/guidance tool. Agents may easily pick the wrong call without reading descriptions carefully.
Most names follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern such as data_session_open, find_paid_work, and verify_contract. Minor deviations like a2awire_guide, data_session_funding_package, and register keep it from being perfectly uniform, but the convention is generally predictable.
16 tools is at the heavy edge of a normal surface, and many of the tools are generic A2AWire marketplace helpers rather than KEV-specific functionality. A dedicated KEV server would feel tighter with fewer, but the count is not extreme.
The set describes a wider marketplace but omits a referenced start_job tool, creating a dead end after find_paid_work. It also lacks any direct KEV query/metadata/session-status tool beyond the payment/session flow, so agents cannot fully complete the advertised workflows.