Trust report for one merchant: 0-100 score, letter grade, uptime, median latency and a plain-English explanation. Accepts Algorand, EVM or Solana addresses, or an https URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Merchant address (Algorand / EVM / Solana) or https URL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the return contents (score, grade, uptime, latency, explanation) and accepted input types. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., read-only nature, network calls, rate limits) or handling of invalid inputs. The transparency is adequate for a simple read operation but not fully comprehensive.
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 single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the essential purpose ('Trust report for one merchant') and enumerates the outputs in a readable list. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and what inputs it accepts. It could be more complete by clarifying the meaning of the score or how to interpret the explanation, but these are not essential for invoking the tool correctly. The sibling context is not explicitly incorporated, but the description stands on its own.
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 the description reiterates the parameter's accepted values ('Algorand, EVM or Solana addresses, or an https URL') which matches the schema description exactly. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's function: generating a trust report for a single merchant, including specific output components (0-100 score, letter grade, uptime, median latency, explanation). It also specifies accepted input formats (Algorand, EVM, Solana addresses, or https URL), distinguishing it from siblings like compare_merchants (comparison) and leaderboard (ranking).
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 implies usage for checking a single merchant's trust report but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There are no alternative names or exclusion criteria provided. The context is clear enough for a basic scenario, but explicit guidance is missing.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking a single merchant, comparing merchants, generating a badge, and viewing a leaderboard. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.
The first three tools follow verb_noun convention (check_trust, compare_merchants, get_badge_url), but 'leaderboard' is a noun-only exception. Minor deviation, but overall predictable.
With only 4 tools, the set is tightly scoped to the server's purpose of providing trust scores and comparisons. Each tool earns its place, and the small count is a strength for clarity.
The domain is merchant trust evaluation and display. The toolset covers all apparent needs: individual trust reports, head-to-head comparison, embeddable badges, and network-filtered leaderboard. No obvious gaps.