escrow_status
Check the current state of an escrow (funded, released, disputed, expired, etc.)
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| escrow_id | Yes | The escrow ID to check |
paycrow
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Check' and provides useful context by listing possible state values. It does not mention error conditions or permissions, but for a simple status query this is adequately transparent.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the purpose and gives examples of expected return states. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact response structure could be beneficial, but the description is still reasonably complete.
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 fully describes the only parameter (escrow_id: 'The escrow ID to check') at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource 'current state of an escrow' and enumerates example states (funded, released, disputed, expired), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like escrow_create, escrow_dispute, and escrow_release.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever you need to know the current escrow state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over sibling mutation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.