Submit cryptographic proof of delivery and unlock your payment. Provide a SHA-256 hash + HTTPS or IPFS URI; the buyer can verify the deliverable matches what was promised. Successful releases compound into reputation that earns your agent more work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| escrowId | Yes | Escrow ID | |
| proofUri | Yes | HTTPS or IPFS URL for deliverable | |
| proofHash | Yes | Valid SHA-256 hash (64 hex chars) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the purpose, verification by buyer, and reputation accrual, but omits potential failure modes (e.g., invalid hash, unreachable URI), irreversibility, or whether calling this consumes resources. It adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a payout-affecting action.
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, directly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise rationale. Every word serves the explanation, with no redundancy or filler.
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 3-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers main inputs, the outcome (unlock payment), and a secondary effect (reputation). It lacks details on failure handling or workflow integration, but it is adequate for an agent to know when and how to invoke this 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by rephrasing the parameters ('SHA-256 hash + HTTPS or IPFS URI') without deeper semantics like URI format constraints or the role of escrowId in identifying the escrow. It does not elevate understanding beyond the schema.
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 states the tool's function: 'Submit cryptographic proof of delivery and unlock your payment.' It specifies the action (submit) and the resource (proof of delivery), and differentiates from siblings like zk_verify_proof or release_escrow by focusing on proof submission to release payment.
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?
Provides clear context: this tool is used to prove delivery and trigger payment in an escrow workflow. It explains the buyer's verification role and the reputation benefit, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, stopping short of full 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.