AgentTrust

by eamwhite1

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Evaluate Escrow Work

evaluate_escrow_work

Destructive

Submit proof of completed work against an existing escrow vault.

Instructions

Submit proof of completed work against an existing escrow vault.

On PASS, payment releases automatically — no EscrowFinish needed. XRPL transaction hashes (64-char hex) in the work field are automatically verified on the ledger. Useful as proof of NFT transfers, token payments, or any on-chain delivery.

Response shape on PASS:

{
  "verdict":          "PASS",
  "status":           "approved",
  "score":            0-100,
  "summary":          "explanation",
  "criteria_met":     ["all criteria that passed"],
  "criteria_failed":  [],
  "auto_finish_queued": True,
  "model_used":       "gemini-2.5-flash"
}

Response shape on FAIL:

{
  "verdict":           "FAIL",
  "status":            "rejected",
  "score":             0-100,
  "summary":           "explanation",
  "criteria_met":      ["criteria that passed"],
  "criteria_failed":   ["specific unmet criterion — exact reason"],
  "attempts_remaining": 2,
  "model_used":        "gemini-2.5-flash"
}

Attempt limits: workers get 3 attempts by default. Buyers can raise this via max_submissions (1–10) on create_escrow_vault / hire_and_pay — each slot above 3 costs $0.05 extra at creation time. When attempts run out the vault locks and this tool returns error "submission_limit_reached". Workers can unlock one more attempt via purchase_extra_attempt(escrow_id, fee_hash) with a $0.05 fee.

On FAIL: read criteria_failed for specific, actionable feedback. Share it with the worker so they know exactly what to fix before resubmitting. Resubmit by calling evaluate_escrow_work again with the same escrow_id.

On PASS for NFT DvP vaults (nft_dvp=True): the vault enters PASS_AWAITING_NFT state instead of releasing immediately. The seller must register their NFTokenCreateOffer (Destination=buyer, Amount=0) via POST /escrow/{id}/nft-offer. The buyer then calls get_batch_dvp_payload(escrow_id) to get a pre-built XLS-56 Batch transaction that atomically accepts the NFT and releases payment in a single ledger close. Both legs succeed or both revert.

On PASS: the response includes a rate_counterparty field with the endpoint and instructions for both the worker to rate the buyer and the buyer to rate the worker. Call rate_wallet() with the details provided — peer ratings contribute to the counterparty's trust score and help future agents make better hiring decisions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`work`	Yes	Work submission or proof of completion. XRPL tx hashes (64-char hex) are auto-verified on the ledger.
`escrow_id`	Yes	The receipt code provided by the buyer when creating the vault.
`task_category`	No	Evaluation rubric. One of: default, creative, code, data, data_analysis, bug_bounty, legal, supply_chain.	default
`evaluate_token`	No	The evaluate_token returned by create_escrow_vault() or hire_and_pay(). The buyer must share this with the worker before submission. Required for vaults created after v2.8.0.
`evidence_links`	No	Up to 3 URLs that are fetched and snapshotted at submission time as supporting evidence.
`require_consensus`	No	Require two AI models to agree before returning PASS. Recommended for high-stakes jobs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.1.0Oct 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / escrow_id / title
```
Added value: +"Escrow ID"
```

addedInput schema / properties / evaluate_token

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "The evaluate_token returned by create_escrow_vault() or hire_and_pay(). The buyer must share this with the worker before submission. Required for vaults created after v2.8.0."
+}

addedInput schema / properties / work / title
```
Added value: +"Completed Work"
```

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations (destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld): describes attempt consumption (3 default, 1–10 via max_submissions), the exact vault-lock error 'submission_limit_reached', the PASS_AWAITING_NFT state transition, atomic two-leg settlement, and the rate_counterparty field. This is rich operational context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Well front-loaded and organized with clear section headers, but it is very long (~450 words) and includes two full response-shape blocks even though has_output_schema=true, so return values are documented twice. Those blocks consume significant space without adding the value the schema already provides.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, state-mutating escrow evaluation tool with NFT DvP edge cases, the description covers the success path, failure feedback loop, attempt exhaustion, unlocking, and the rating follow-up. Nothing needed to call it correctly in either the standard or DvP flow is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including work, escrow_id, task_category, evaluate_token, evidence_links and require_consensus. The description largely restates the work-field auto-verification already in the schema and discusses max_submissions (a parameter of other tools), adding little new per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Submit proof of completed work against an existing escrow vault') and immediately clarifies the downstream effect (auto payment release, no EscrowFinish needed). This clearly separates it from sibling submission/confirmation tools like submit_escrow_transaction and confirm_escrow_transaction.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use and alternatives: identifies the EscrowFinish path as unnecessary on PASS, names purchase_extra_attempt for unlocking an attempt, and get_batch_dvp_payload for the NFT DvP flow. Also instructs how to resubmit on FAIL and when to call rate_wallet().

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

Deploy Server