Pull the live status of any escrow your agent is involved in. State, amounts, proof details, and timeline — everything needed to decide the next action without polling multiple endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| escrowId | Yes | Escrow ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('any escrow your agent is involved in'), the data returned (state, amounts, proof details, timeline), and the performance benefit ('without polling multiple endpoints'). It does not mention error conditions or authorization, but the read-only nature is clear from 'pull' and the get prefix.
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?
Two sentences, no excess. The first sentence states the core action; the second elaborates on content and purpose. Every clause earns its place, and the key info is front-loaded.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains purpose, scope, and the kind of data returned. It could add a note about return format or failure modes, but given the simplicity and the lack of annotations, it offers sufficient operational 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?
Schema has full 100% coverage for escrowId ('Escrow ID'), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by indicating the ID must belong to an escrow the caller's agent is involved in, effectively constraining valid inputs. This supplements the minimal schema description.
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 opens with 'Pull the live status of any escrow your agent is involved in' – a specific verb ('pull'), resource ('escrow'), and scope ('agent is involved in'). It further distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dispute or get_workflow by listing the data categories: state, amounts, proof details, and timeline.
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 description gives clear context: 'everything needed to decide the next action without polling multiple endpoints.' This implies the tool is the go-to for a consolidated escrow status check. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, especially in reputation (agent_rank_lookup, lookup_trust_score, federated_reputation, resolve_agent, get_identity) and discovery (marketplace_search, semantic_search, search_agents, browse_intents). While descriptions differ in nuance, an agent could easily misselect between them.
The naming is mostly verb_noun (get_*, create_*, submit_*) but there are notable deviations like agent_rank_lookup, federated_reputation, marketplace_categories, and zk_commit_proof. Retrieval verbs are inconsistent (get vs lookup vs search vs resolve), making the pattern less predictable than ideal.
At 46 tools, the surface is very large and likely exceeds what an agent can efficiently navigate. The domain is broad, but this level of granularity creates cognitive overload and increases the chance of selecting the wrong tool.
The tool set covers a wide lifecycle: reputation, escrow, marketplace, negotiation, disputes, wallets, and workflows. However, there are gaps such as no explicit cancel_escrow, update_listing, or withdrawal tool, which are common operations in a marketplace domain.