Confirm Escrow Transaction

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

The description discloses the main side effect: registering the transaction hash and having the referee cache the escrow sequence number. The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds the concrete state-changing behavior without contradicting those hints.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear call-to-action, a timing note, and a short returns section. Every sentence adds useful context without redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has only two well-described parameters and annotations already convey read/write/destructive/idempotent traits, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains the prerequisite (after submitting EscrowCreate), the side effect, and the return fields.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema: tx_hash is identified as a 64-character hex XRPL transaction hash and escrow_id as the receipt code from create_escrow_vault. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond this, so the baseline score for high schema coverage applies.

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 clearly states the specific verb and object: registering the on-chain EscrowCreate transaction hash with the referee. It also provides context by saying this is done after submitting the EscrowCreate transaction, which distinguishes it from the related submission and preparation tools.

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 explicitly says to call this after submitting the EscrowCreate transaction on XRPL, giving clear timing guidance. It also explains the benefit (the referee caches the sequence number so the worker does not need to provide it), but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or edge cases such as retries.

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