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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context by indicating an independent on-chain lookup and listing the returned information. It does not contradict the annotations and gives an agent a clear model of what the call does without hiding side effects.
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, tightly constructed sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific outputs without filler. Every element earns its place.
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 no-argument, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it states the purpose, the verification target, and the exact data returned. No critical invocation information 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema already explains that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and nothing here lowers it.
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 specific resource ('the EscrowVault on-chain'), and enumerates the exact return contents. This clearly separates it from sibling tools focused on opening sessions, attaching escrows, or funding.
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' creates a clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when an agent needs direct, on-chain confirmation of the EscrowVault rather than an action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intended use is evident.
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 map to distinct areas (onboarding, earnings, data sessions, agents), but the data_session_* cluster has fine-grained boundaries that are easy to misroute, particularly data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow. a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, and onboard_start also overlap somewhat in their guidance role, though their descriptions help an agent choose.
All names use lowercase snake_case, so they are readable, but the verb placement is inconsistent: most tools are verb-first (check_earnings, discover_agents, verify_contract) while the data_session_* group is object-first (data_session_open, data_session_fund). Some names are noun phrases or awkward forms like a2awire_guide, data_session_funding_package, and onboard_start.
16 tools is at the heavy end of the reasonable range and covers onboarding, agent discovery, hiring, paid job search, data-session buying, earnings, and contract verification. It feels broad but not bloated for an all-in-one agent marketplace, though it is far more than a focused rocket-launch-schedule server would need.
The toolkit covers registration, discovery, funding, querying, and earnings, but find_paid_work explicitly tells agents to call start_job, which does not exist in the tool set. Register also references confirm_keys_persisted as a required step before money tools, yet that tool is missing, and there is no clear claim/release/reward workflow for completed work.