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 safety profile: readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the verification is on-chain and lists what is returned, but it does not disclose further operational behavior such as RPC failure handling or data freshness. Given the strong annotation coverage, the description is adequate but not highly additive.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action and packs the return contract into a readable list. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.
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-argument, read-only tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and outputs. The only notable gap is routing guidance relative to sibling tools, but the operational essentials are otherwise sufficiently specified.
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 takes zero parameters, and the input schema already explains why: the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With full schema coverage and no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies and the description does not need to add more.
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 and resource ('verify the EscrowVault on-chain') and enumerates the concrete outputs: address, chain ID, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, and ABI summary. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_agent_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' implies a use case: confirming the on-chain EscrowVault rather than relying on pre-supplied data. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agent_contract, and no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.