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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by stating the verification is 'independently' performed on-chain and describing what the returned verification payload contains, going beyond the structured annotation fields without contradicting them.
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 conveys the purpose and key output contents without any filler. Every part adds value, and the structure makes the tool's behavior immediately understandable.
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, idempotent tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description provides all essential context. It explains the verification scope and the categories of returned information, leaving no obvious operational gaps.
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 description already states that no arguments are needed because the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description adds no parameter details because none are required, which matches the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('verify'), a specific resource ('the EscrowVault on-chain'), and enumerates the returned data (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary). It is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from 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 when to use the tool—when an on-chain verification of the EscrowVault is needed—but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.
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.
Most tools target distinct lifecycle stages, but a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, and onboard_start all serve as orientation/next-step helpers and could be confused. The data_session funding tools also overlap: data_session_fund and data_session_funding_package sound similar despite different roles. Descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always crisp.
The majority of tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as check_earnings, discover_agents, and verify_contract. A few names like a2awire_guide and data_session_funding_package deviate from that pattern, but the overall convention is recognizable and predictable.
At 16 tools, this is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the count is justified by multiple workflows: data session purchasing, marketplace hiring, onboarding, and contract verification. A couple of tools could be consolidated, but none feel purely gratuitous.
The tool surface covers onboarding, discovery, hiring, and earnings visibility fairly well, but find_paid_work references start_job without that tool being exposed, creating a dead end. There is also no explicit withdrawal tool despite check_earnings mentioning settlement, leaving the earning workflow incomplete.