Release a FUNDED/DISPUTED escrow to the payee (exactly-once — a repeat release returns the existing terminal record, never a double payout).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| escrow_id | Yes | ||
| delivery_proof | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the exactly-once behavior and idempotency (repeat returns same record). It does not cover authorization or side effects, but the core behavioral trait is well communicated.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a clarifying parenthetical. Every word adds value without redundancy.
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 mentions the return of an existing terminal record, which helps with output understanding. However, it lacks prerequisites (e.g., escrow must be FUNDED or DISPUTED) and does not mention the output schema. Given the presence of an output schema and sibling tools, it is mostly 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 not explain the parameters (escrow_id, delivery_proof) beyond their names. The context implies escrow_id is the identifier, but no additional semantics are provided.
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 (release), the resource (escrow), and the allowed states (FUNDED/DISPUTED). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like dispute_escrow or refund_escrow by specifying the exact scenario.
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 when the escrow is in FUNDED or DISPUTED state and mentions exactly-once semantics for safe retries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.
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.