Lock funds in escrow (allocate memory). Creates a new escrow and funds it. Returns escrowId, status, and amount locked. This is the primitive agents use to put money on hold before work begins.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount in USDC to lock | |
| description | Yes | Human-readable description of what the escrow secures | |
| idempotencyKey | No | Optional idempotency key for retries | |
| deliverableHash | No | Optional hash of the expected deliverable |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates and funds a new escrow and returns escrowId, status, and amount locked, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, failure behavior, or how idempotency is enforced.
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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and includes return values and usage context without unnecessary repetition. Every sentence contributes useful information.
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 covers the core mutation and return values, which is helpful because no output schema exists. However, for a financial mutation tool with no annotations, it omits important context such as permissions, irreversibility, idempotency behavior, and how it relates to sibling escrow tools.
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 schema already documents all four parameters, including amount, description, idempotencyKey, and deliverableHash. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific financial action: locking funds in escrow by creating and funding a new escrow. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as pabandi_start_escrow or pabandi_escrow_release.
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?
It gives a clear usage context: the primitive agents use to put money on hold before work begins. However, it does not explicitly name when to use this versus pabandi_start_escrow or 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.