Submit a locally-signed EscrowCreate transaction blob and activate the vault in one step — no separate confirm call needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx_blob | Yes | Hex-encoded signed transaction from your XRPL wallet | |
| escrow_id | Yes | The escrow ID from hire_and_pay() or create_escrow_vault() |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the key behavioral trait of activating the vault in one step without a separate confirm call, but lacks details about error handling, irreversibility, resource consumption, or what happens if the transaction blob is invalid. While useful, it leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 sentence of 18 words that front-loads the core action and includes a crucial distinction from a sibling tool. Every word provides information—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?
Given the tool has only two parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and distinctive behavior (one-step activation). It is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does and how it relates to other escrow operations, though it could briefly mention that the blob must be properly signed or the outcome if the transaction fails.
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 descriptions in the schema already document both parameters. The tool description adds unique value by specifying the source of escrow_id (hire_and_pay() or create_escrow_vault()), which is not present in the schema. It does not add detail for tx_blob beyond 'locally-signed', which is partly already in the schema, but the added context elevates it above baseline.
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 it submits a locally-signed EscrowCreate transaction blob and activates the vault in one step, distinguishing itself from the sibling tool 'confirm_escrow_transaction' by noting no separate confirm call is needed. The verb 'submit' and resource 'EscrowCreate transaction' are specific and unambiguous.
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 implies usage context by stating the escrow_id comes from hire_and_pay() or create_escrow_vault(), giving agents a clear precondition. It also distinguishes from confirm_escrow_transaction, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if the escrow has already been activated, or if a different submission method is needed).
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions clearly. However, list_marketplace_jobs and list_open_jobs both involve browsing jobs and could be confused, and audit_task overlaps somewhat with evaluate_escrow_work in verifying work quality. Descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate with careful reading.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_escrow_vault, list_marketplace_jobs, confirm_wallet_ownership). There are no camelCase or Style deviations, making naming highly predictable.
At 19 tools, the set is slightly heavy but reasonably scoped for a multi-featured platform covering job board, escrow, skills, wallet verification, and pricing. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, though some consolidation could be considered.
There is a significant gap: list_marketplace_jobs references a claim_job() function that does not exist in the tool set, breaking the primary workflow for agents to accept available bounties. Additionally, there are no update/delete operations for job postings or skill listings, and no explicit escrow cancellation tool.