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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing what data is fetched (address, RPC, USDC token, ABI summary) and stating verification is 'on-chain' and 'independent', which clarifies the scope and trust model beyond 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?
The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists all concrete return items in parentheses. Every element earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 the tool takes zero parameters, has a rich output schema, and full annotation coverage for safety, the description supplies all needed context: what is verified, where (on-chain), and what is returned. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 zero parameters and the schema states 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal.' The description reinforces that no input is required and implies authentication context is used implicitly, which is helpful. Since the schema fully covers this, the description adds value by clarifying the derivation of the owner.
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 ('verify') and resource ('EscrowVault on-chain'), then enumerates the exact outputs: address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, and ABI summary. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings.
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 description clearly conveys this is a read-only verification action, and 'Independently verify' implies it should be used when confirming on-chain contract details. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or alternatives, though sibling names suggest other workflow steps rather than competing verification tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.