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 description is fully transparent about the behavior: it performs an independent verification and returns on-chain details. This aligns with the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations. There is no contradiction and no hidden side effects indicated.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and then lists the specific outputs. No unnecessary words or repetition; it is easy to parse quickly.
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 verification tool, the description is complete. It names the target contract, the verification intent, and all expected output fields. An agent can determine when and how to invoke it without additional context.
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 is empty. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description appropriately omits parameter details; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is a 4.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: independently verify the EscrowVault on-chain, and enumerates the exact returned data (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_contract or data_session_attach_escrow, which focus on other contract or data-session concerns.
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 the EscrowVault on-chain' implies when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state conditions such as 'use this when you need a trusted on-chain check before proceeding.' No sibling tools are referenced, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.