create_escrow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: ETH is locked, ERC-20 tokens are transferred from wallet with automatic approval, a flat fee is charged in ETH, and a required env var. This is substantial and goes beyond simple 'create' boilerplate.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning their place: main action, token-specific behavior, and required prerequisite/fee. No fluff, front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (two token types, fee, env var) and no output schema. The description covers the key semantics and prerequisites, though it doesn't mention the return value or whether an escrow ID is generated. Still, it's sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to call it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the token parameter's zero-address convention for ETH, the automatic approval handling, and the units for amount. This helps the agent understand how to set parameters correctly beyond the schema's raw field descriptions.

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 tool creates a new P2P escrow deal on Base, with specific behavior for ETH vs ERC-20. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools (which are getters, release, refund, dispute) by focusing on the creation action.

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?

It clearly implies when to use this tool (to create an escrow) and provides the prerequisites (DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but among siblings this is the only create/action tool, so the context is clear.

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