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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that verification is performed independently on-chain and by listing the exact verification payload, which clarifies what the tool actually does at runtime.
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, front-loaded sentence communicates the action, the object, and the concrete result set without filler. Every element adds useful information, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately readable.
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 that the tool has no parameters, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the key operational context well. The only notable gap is the lack of any relationship to sibling contract-related tools, which would help an agent decide when 'independently verifies' is the right choice.
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 description already explains that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description therefore carries no parameter burden, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.
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 clearly names the verb ('verify'), the resource ('EscrowVault on-chain'), and enumerates the specific outputs returned (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_agent_contract, which also appears contract-related, so it misses the highest bar for sibling differentiation.
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 this tool is for confirming contract details directly from the chain, which provides some usage context. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_agent_contract or data_session_attach_escrow, and no stated exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.