Mark an OPEN escrow as FUNDED (idempotent). payment_ref links the payment-rail transaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| escrow_id | Yes | ||
| payment_ref | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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?
The description reveals that the tool is idempotent, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects, authorization requirements, or error handling. The return value is not described, though an output schema exists.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and state, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and key parameter.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the tool's return value need not be described. The description covers the essential behavior, but could explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., escrow must be OPEN) to be fully complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so for payment_ref by stating it links to the payment-rail transaction. However, escrow_id is left unexplained beyond its context, and no parameter descriptions are provided for either parameter.
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 action as marking an OPEN escrow as FUNDED, with idempotency. It specifies the resource (escrow) and the state transition. The sibling tools include other escrow actions (dispute, refund, release), distinguishing this as a dedicated funding step.
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 the tool should only be used on OPEN escrows and mentions idempotency. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., release_escrow), nor does it provide conditions for when not to use it.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose covering specific lifecycle actions (open, fund, release, refund, dispute) and queries (status, list, audit). No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., open_escrow, fund_escrow, list_escrows), with no mixing of conventions.
9 tools is well-scoped for an escrow system, covering all necessary operations without excess or deficiency.
Complete lifecycle coverage: open, fund, release, refund, dispute, status, list, audit, plus self-description. Refund also handles cancellation of OPEN escrows, filling a potential gap.