spraay_escrow_create

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

Annotations are minimal (no idempotent, readOnlyHint false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Funds are held until release conditions are met', 'Data persists in Supabase', and 'Costs $0.008 USDC'. It also mentions return values. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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's complexity (7 parameters, 4 required, Blockchain interaction), the description covers purpose, behavior, persistence, cost, and return type. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., wallet funding) but is largely complete. An output schema exists to describe return structure.

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 mentions 'optional milestones, arbiter, and expiry' but does not add detailed parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Each parameter is well-documented in the schema itself.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a conditional escrow, specifies optional features (milestones, arbiter, expiry), and names the blockchain (Base). The verb 'Create' plus resource 'escrow' with qualifiers like 'conditional' and 'optional' make the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like escrow_fund, escrow_release, etc.

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 implies when to use by stating it creates an escrow, which contrasts with siblings that fund, release, cancel, or get/list escrows. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements. The context of sibling names provides sufficient differentiation.

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