Raise a dispute when an escrow goes wrong. Triggers Synmerco's 3-tier resolution (automated rules → Ambassador agent → human arbitration). Funds stay locked until resolved, protecting both sides — neither agent can drain the escrow without the platform's backing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | Detailed reason for the dispute | |
| escrowId | Yes | Escrow ID | |
| raisedBy | Yes | DID of the agent raising the dispute | |
| respondent | Yes | DID of the other party |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that raising a dispute triggers a 3-tier resolution and locks funds until resolved, protecting both parties. This goes beyond a simple 'raise dispute' statement, though it does not cover every possible side effect or edge case.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds valuable behavioral context. No wasted words and all sentences earn their 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?
The description covers the essential context: trigger condition, resolution process, and fund-locking behavior. With no output schema, it could have added what response to expect, but the overall description is sufficiently complete for a dispute-raising tool.
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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (escrowId, raisedBy, respondent, reason). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Raise a dispute when an escrow goes wrong.' This clearly states the action and context, and distinguishes it from siblings like get_dispute (viewing) and release_escrow (releasing funds).
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?
It provides a clear context for when to use the tool ('when an escrow goes wrong') and explains the resulting resolution process. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.
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.