Hold funds until release conditions are met, so buyers and sellers avoid going first. Provide seller phone, amount, and optional condition.
Hold funds until released. The money is taken from the payer and held rather than forwarded, so neither side has to go first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Whole units. | |
| condition | No | What must be true before release. | |
| seller_phone | Yes | Seller number, full international form, no plus. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the core behavioral model: funds are held, not forwarded, so neither party bears first-mover risk. It omits auth requirements, who the payer is (implicit in the caller), fees, and what happens to funds if never released, leaving meaningful gaps for a financial mutation.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste, and the core mechanic (hold vs. forward) is front-loaded. Every clause adds meaning.
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 money-movement mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the hold mechanic but omits preconditions, the release counterpart, fees, and hold expiration. It is adequate to understand intent but thin on operational detail.
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 amount, seller_phone, and condition are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that; the allusion to "the payer" only hints that the paying side is derived from context rather than passed as a parameter.
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 clear action and mechanism ("Hold funds until released", money taken from the payer and held rather than forwarded), so an agent understands this creates a held-funds transaction. It does not differentiate from the sibling release_escrow, which is the natural counterpart, and never frames the operation as "create an escrow transaction".
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of release_escrow as the downstream step that frees the held funds. The agent must infer from the name alone when this is the right tool versus create_mobile_money_payment or create_disbursement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.