Skip to main content
Glama

paycrow

by io.github.michu5696

escrow_create

Create a USDC escrow with built-in dispute resolution. Funds are locked on-chain until delivery is confirmed (release) or a problem is flagged (dispute). If disputed, an arbiter reviews and rules — the only escrow service with real dispute resolution on Base.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sellerYesEthereum address of the seller/service provider
amount_usdcYesAmount in USDC (e.g., 5.00 for $5)
service_urlYesURL or identifier of the service being purchased (used for tracking)
timelock_minutesNoMinutes until escrow expires and auto-refunds (default: 30)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it discloses that funds are locked on-chain, the release/dispute flow, and that an arbiter reviews disputes. It does not mention gas costs, reversibility, or required authentication, but the core lifecycle behavior is well described.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds relevant behavioral detail about dispute resolution. The marketing phrase 'the only escrow service with real dispute resolution on Base' is arguably fluff but also communicates a unique value proposition; overall, every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description could explain what the tool returns (e.g., escrow ID), but it doesn't. However, the tool's purpose and lifecycle are thoroughly described, and sibling tools cover status/dispute/release, so the description is largely sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema already provides full parameter descriptions with examples, bounds, and defaults (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning—for instance, it doesn't explain how timelock_minutes interacts with the dispute flow beyond 'auto-refunds'. Thus the description does not exceed the schema baseline.

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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a USDC escrow with dispute resolution, using the specific verb 'Create' plus a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (escrow_dispute, escrow_release) by highlighting the built-in dispute resolution lifecycle, making the purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool—when you want to lock funds in escrow with dispute resolution—and implies the flow (funds locked until release or dispute). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives like 'use safe_pay for simple payments', so it misses the full 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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

All paycrow toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between trust_gate, trust_onchain_quick, and trust_score_query, which all relate to checking agent trustworthiness. While each has a slightly different focus (quick check vs. full breakdown vs. decision recommendation), an agent might struggle to choose the right one in some scenarios. The escrow and payment tools are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., escrow_create, escrow_release, rate_service), but there are deviations like safe_pay (adjective_verb) and x402_protected_call (alphanumeric prefix). These outliers break the pattern slightly, though the majority of tools follow a clear convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose of handling escrow, payments, and trust management. Each tool appears to serve a specific function in the workflow, from creating escrows to checking trust scores, without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the escrow and payment domain, including creation, dispute, release, status checks, rating, and trust assessment. It supports both automated (safe_pay) and manual (x402_protected_call) workflows, with no obvious gaps in the lifecycle or functionality needed for secure transactions.

Resources