DJZS Trust MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the on-chain source (Base mainnet, DJZS subgraph), the returned fields, and the halt condition, clearly implying a read-only query with no side effects.

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 concise: two main sentences plus a conditional halt instruction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and clear sibling differentiation, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use, what it returns, and a critical halt condition. A minor gap is the lack of error handling details, but overall it is complete.

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% for the single parameter 'agentAddress', with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 clearly states it queries an agent's DJZS trust score, aggregated on-chain from Base mainnet, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools (query_pol_certificates, verify_pm_trade) that deal with certificates and trade verification.

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 explicitly says 'USE BEFORE delegating work, releasing escrow, or executing agent transactions' and provides a halt condition for high failRate or repeated flags, giving clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states certificates are 'immutable' but does not clarify read-only nature, side effects, or performance constraints. The schema mentions index timeouts for from_ms but this is not in the description.

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 two efficient sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides usage guidelines. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers high-level purpose and usage but lacks details about return values, pagination, or the complex from_ms behavior. It is minimally complete for an agent familiar with the domain but could be improved.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the general purpose. The from_ms auto-narrowing behavior described in the schema is not mentioned in the description.

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 clearly states the tool queries immutable ProofOfLogic certificates on Irys Datachain. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool query_agent_trust by indicating use cases for audit history and FAIL verdicts, and what not to use it for.

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 provides explicit when-to-use instructions (verify audit history, check FAIL verdicts, retrieve by Irys tx ID) and when-not-to-use (on-chain trust scores), with a named alternative (query_agent_trust). This leaves no ambiguity for the agent.

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

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

Without annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint), the description carries full burden. It discloses determinism, the audit taxonomy, result types, and the verdict_hash. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects (e.g., on-chain recording). The parameter 'agent_address' hints at updating trust scores, but the core behavior is clear enough for safe invocation.

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 concise (four sentences) and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, details the audit taxonomy and outputs, includes a usage directive ('Audit before act'), and notes the payment requirement. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Given the tool's complexity (custom taxonomy, deterministic audit, output without schema), the description provides adequate context: taxonomy list, result types, and a verdict_hash. However, the absence of an output schema means the agent lacks detailed response structure (e.g., format of defects). Still, for a specialized audit tool, the description is largely complete.

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% (all three parameters described in schema). The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: for 'intent' it specifies 'prediction-market trade thesis'; for 'agent_address' it clarifies it updates on-chain trust score; for 'target_system' it mentions becoming a tag on the PoL certificate. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool performs a 'deterministic pre-execution audit of a prediction-market trade thesis.' It specifies the exact process: extract reasoning, audit against the DJZS taxonomy, and return PASS/FAIL/WAIT with defects and a verdict_hash. This distinguishes it from sibling query tools (query_agent_trust, query_pol_certificates) which are read-only lookups.

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 advises 'Audit before act,' implying use before executing a trade. It also notes the cost (2 USDC via x402), helping the agent decide if the paid tool is warranted. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling context and clear audit purpose provide adequate guidance.

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