Create a child sub-escrow from a master escrow (parent-child subcontracting). Allocates a portion of master funds to a subcontractor. Returns childEscrowId and amount allocated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount in USDC to allocate to this child | |
| idempotencyKey | No | Optional idempotency key for retries | |
| masterEscrowId | Yes | Parent escrow ID | |
| deliverableHash | No | Expected deliverable hash | |
| providerPassportId | Yes | Subcontractor passport/agent ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by explaining the mechanism ('Allocates a portion of master funds') and specifying the return values ('Returns childEscrowId and amount allocated').
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 definition is highly concise and structurally perfect. The first sentence defines the 'What' and 'Why', and the second sentence defines the 'How' and 'What to Expect'.
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 absence of an output schema, the description is complete because it clearly defines the behavioral outcome and the specific data types returned (childEscrowId and amount allocated), which is sufficient for an agent to execute the operation.
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 100%, providing a strong baseline. The description provides valuable human-readable semantics for the required parameters (e.g., defining `providerPassportId` as the 'Subcontractor passport/agent ID').
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 (Create a child sub-escrow), the resource (child sub-escrow), and the specific business context (parent-child subcontracting). This distinguishes it well from other general escrow tools like `pabandi_start_escrow`.
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?
While it defines the use case (allocating funds to a subcontractor), it does not explicitly define when this tool *should not* be used, offering only implied usage rather than prescriptive boundaries.
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.