Flag a problem with delivery — PayCrow's key differentiator. Locks escrowed funds and triggers arbiter review. Unlike other escrow services that say 'no disputes, no chargebacks', PayCrow has real on-chain dispute resolution. Use when service was not delivered or quality was unacceptable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | Brief description of the problem for the arbiter | |
| escrow_id | Yes | The escrow ID to dispute |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'Locks escrowed funds' and 'triggers arbiter review,' and mentions on-chain dispute resolution. However, it does not address reversibility, fees, or the full arbitration process, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 contains four sentences, with the third sentence ('Unlike other escrow services...') being marketing fluff that does not aid tool invocation. The first two sentences and the last usage sentence are useful, but the unnecessary promotional content lowers the conciseness score.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage adequately. It does not mention return values or post-dispute procedures, but these are not essential for basic invocation, making the description sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it provides context for the 'reason' parameter by describing the typical problem scenarios, but no additional syntax or format details. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with a clear verb and resource: 'Flag a problem with delivery' and 'Locks escrowed funds and triggers arbiter review.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like escrow_release or escrow_status, and the intended use case is unmistakable.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when service was not delivered or quality was unacceptable.' It clearly implies this is for dispute scenarios, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.
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 have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between trust_gate, trust_onchain_quick, and trust_score_query, which all relate to checking agent trustworthiness. While each has a slightly different focus (quick check vs. full breakdown vs. decision recommendation), an agent might struggle to choose the right one in some scenarios. The escrow and payment tools are clearly differentiated.
The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., escrow_create, escrow_release, rate_service), but there are deviations like safe_pay (adjective_verb) and x402_protected_call (alphanumeric prefix). These outliers break the pattern slightly, though the majority of tools follow a clear convention.
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose of handling escrow, payments, and trust management. Each tool appears to serve a specific function in the workflow, from creating escrows to checking trust scores, without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the escrow and payment domain, including creation, dispute, release, status checks, rating, and trust assessment. It supports both automated (safe_pay) and manual (x402_protected_call) workflows, with no obvious gaps in the lifecycle or functionality needed for secure transactions.