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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already define the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds output scope but no additional behavioral detail such as network access, failure modes, or side effects; there is no contradiction.
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 one tight sentence that leads with the core purpose and packs a complete, useful output list into a parenthetical. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler.
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, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description fully specifies what the agent will receive. Nothing important for safe selection or invocation is missing.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, and the schema explicitly documents that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. A zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no required parameter semantics beyond that.
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'), a precise resource ('EscrowVault on-chain'), and enumerates the returned data: address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, and ABI summary. This makes it clearly distinguishable from contract-related 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 word 'Independently' implies this tool is for direct on-chain verification rather than trusting cached or third-party data, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage context is implied by the purpose, not stated explicitly.
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 actions, but the data_session_fund / data_session_funding_package / data_session_attach_escrow trio has overlapping purposes around funding a session, and get_recommended_action overlaps with a2awire_guide as navigation aids. Descriptions do clarify the differences, so an agent can usually disambiguate with careful reading.
Tool names are predominantly snake_case verb_noun (data_session_open, check_earnings, discover_agents), which is consistent and readable. Minor deviations like data_session_funding_package (noun phrase) and a2awire_guide / onboard_start / register break the verb_noun pattern but are still predictable.
At 16 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range for a focused server. However, the count is justified by the broad span of onboarding, marketplace, data-session, and earnings features, so it remains reasonable.
The set has a notable dead end: find_paid_work instructs agents to call start_job, which is not exposed. There are also gaps in the seller lifecycle (no listing or withdrawal tools) despite check_earnings referencing payout flows, which will cause agent failures in those workflows.