Skip to main content
Glama
1tylermitchell

Sairen

by 1tylermitchell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

create_task_bounty_escrow

Lock a task bounty into a programmatic escrow vault to secure payment until proof of completion is verified.

Instructions

    [Cost: $0.01 USDC on Base & Solana] Locks a task bounty into a programmatic escrow vault.
    Lifecycle:
      1. Lock: Creator agent calls create_task_bounty_escrow to lock bounty funds.
      2. Claim: Worker agents or human operators discover open bounties and call claim_task_bounty to reserve the task.
      3. Proof: Worker submits proof of completion (SHA-256 hash, URL, or signed message) via submit_task_proof.
      4. Release: Creator inspects proof via get_task_escrow_status and executes release_task_bounty to trigger payout.

    Args:
        creator_id: EVM wallet address or agent identifier posting the bounty.
        title: Short task summary.
        description: Detailed requirements or deliverables.
        bounty_usd: Amount locked in USD.
        proof_type: Verification proof type ('sha256_hash', 'signed_message', 'url_delivery').
        ttl_seconds: Escrow duration in seconds (default: 7200).
        payment_signature: Optional x402 Base USDC transaction hash or developer mock key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
bounty_usdYes
creator_idYes
proof_typeNosha256_hash
descriptionYes
ttl_secondsNo
payment_signatureNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC) and that it locks funds, but it does not mention potential irreversibility, failure modes, or permission requirements. For a financial operation, more transparency would be expected, but the lifecycle adds some context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with a cost note, numbered lifecycle, and an Args list. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the description covers purpose, parameters, and lifecycle, it does not mention the return value or what happens on success/failure. Since there is no output schema, the agent would need to know what to expect, making this a notable gap.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter, including formats for creator_id and payment_signature, and defaults for ttl_seconds and proof_type. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Locks a task bounty into a programmatic escrow vault.' It also provides a lifecycle that distinguishes it from sibling tools like claim_task_bounty and release_task_bounty, making the role unambiguous.

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 includes a detailed lifecycle showing this tool as the first step, which implicitly tells when to use it. It mentions other tools in the flow but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. However, the lifecycle is a strong contextual guide.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools