Skip to main content
Glama

paycrow

by io.github.michu5696

rate_service

Rate a completed escrow. After escrow_release, rate the seller's service quality (1-5 stars).

This builds the reputation data that makes PayCrow's trust scores meaningful over time. Both sides can rate: buyer rates seller's service quality, seller rates buyer's conduct.

Ratings are on-chain and permanent — they feed directly into trust scoring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
starsYesRating 1-5 stars (1=terrible, 5=excellent)
escrow_idYesThe escrow ID to rate (must be in Released state)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that ratings are 'on-chain and permanent' and 'feed directly into trust scoring', which are important behavioral traits. It does not elaborate on return values or success/failure behavior, but the key permanence and impact are well conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four concise sentences, each earning its place: main purpose, importance for trust scores, roles for each side, and permanent on-chain nature. It is front-loaded with the actionable purpose and avoids fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 output schema, the description covers the purpose, timing, participating roles, and behavioral consequences. It lacks explicit return value or error conditions, but the core context is sufficiently complete, especially given the schema's parameter details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that stars represent 'seller's service quality' for buyers and 'buyer's conduct' for sellers, which enriches the schema's generic 1-5 scale. This goes beyond the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Rate a completed escrow', a specific verb and resource, and further clarifies the scope by specifying 'After escrow_release' and rating on a 1-5 star scale. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like escrow_create, escrow_dispute, escrow_release, and trust_score_query.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool (after escrow_release) and who can use it (both buyer and seller with different rating criteria). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the precondition and role clarity provide solid guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All paycrow toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources