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?
The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: the verification is independent, performed on-chain, and returns RPC/explorer details, suggesting a live external lookup rather than a cached or local result. It does not discuss failure modes or network dependencies, but annotations lower the burden.
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 front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the concrete return items without any filler. Every clause contributes value, and the description is easy to scan.
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?
With zero parameters, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide to call it and understand what it will receive. The enumerated output items align with the output schema and remove ambiguity.
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 schema already explains that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. Since there are no parameters to disambiguate, the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter information.
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') and resource ('EscrowVault on-chain') and then enumerates the concrete outputs: address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, and ABI summary. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separates it from generic or vague contract tools.
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 direct on-chain verification, and the output list clarifies what kind of information it provides. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related siblings such as get_agent_contract, nor any exclusions or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.