q402_escrow_lock

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it warns 'MOVES REAL FUNDS', explains gasless sponsorship via EIP-7702, details key requirements (server signs for Agent Wallet, otherwise Q402_PRIVATE_KEY), and mandates user confirmation. This is exceptionally transparent for a financial mutation tool.

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 a bit long but front-loaded with purpose and every sentence contributes critical information (mechanism, real funds, key requirements, confirmation). The use of caps and clear segmentation helps scanning, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 moderate complexity (funding escrow with gasless flow) and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, prerequisites, and mandatory confirmation. It doesn't state return values, but that's not essential here; overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% and already describes both params. The description adds value by explaining that escrowId comes from escrow_create and clarifying that confirm:true must only be set after explicit user confirmation of the exact action, reinforcing the safety intent.

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, specific verb ('Fund') and resource ('pending escrow'), plus the mechanism ('gaslessly locks the amount into the vault via EIP-7702'). It distinguishes from sibling escrow tools like release, refund, and dispute by focusing on the funding step.

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 implies when to use this tool (after escrow_create, before release/refund) and provides an explicit safety rule: 'ALWAYS confirm the exact amount/seller/chain with the user before calling (confirm:true)'. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling names make that clear.

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