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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the verification is 'independent' and enumerating the returned data, giving the agent a clear picture of what the call does beyond the annotation flags. No contradiction exists.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Independently verify the EscrowVault on-chain') and then lists concrete outputs. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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 no-argument, read-only verification tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and the tool carries no invocation parameters or hidden prerequisites that need explanation.
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 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter semantics are needed from the description. The input schema already states there are no arguments and that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal.
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 and resource: independently verify the EscrowVault on-chain. It also lists the exact output items (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary), making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_agent_contract or data_session_attach_escrow.
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 for obtaining on-chain proof of the EscrowVault's deployed details, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided, though the tool's simplicity reduces the need for complex routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.