Create a payment deal to pay another agent for work (uses escrow)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_agent | Yes | Agent ID receiving payment | |
| from_agent | Yes | Agent ID paying (must have sufficient balance) | |
| description | Yes | Description of work/task being paid for | |
| amount_cents | Yes | Payment amount in cents |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals that the payment deal uses escrow, which is a meaningful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., funds held, when released) or what the tool returns.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and a relevant parenthetical about escrow. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.
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 is simple and its parameters are well documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should offer more guidance on when to use it versus alternatives and what to expect upon creation. The escrow mention helps but leaves gaps.
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?
All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'pay another agent for work' adds context to amount_cents and description but does not provide format or syntax details beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'Create', identifies the resource as a 'payment deal', and clarifies the purpose: paying another agent for work. The mention of escrow further distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_stake and create_campaign.
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?
Clear context is provided: use this tool to pay another agent for work. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough to infer when this tool would be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions. The only potential confusion is between approve_job and complete_deal, both releasing payments, but descriptions clearly differentiate job vs deal contexts. Overall, tools are well-separated.
Almost all tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, etc.). The only outlier is network_stats, which lacks a verb, but this is a minor deviation from an otherwise uniform convention.
With 29 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a well-scoped server. While the platform covers many domains (jobs, payments, trust, identity, campaigns, tickets), the high count feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation or clearer separation into sub-modules.
Core job and stake lifecycles are fully covered, but tickets and campaigns only support create/list/get with no update, delete, or close operations. Payment also lacks a direct send/unified transfer option. These gaps are notable but workarounds exist via deals and top-up links.