Embeddable LEGIT trust-badge SVG URL for a merchant, plus a ready-to-paste HTML snippet for the merchant's site.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions output format (URL and HTML snippet) but does not state side effects, authorization needs, or error handling. For a tool named 'get', read-only is implied but not explicitly disclosed.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the main output (SVG URL) and then the secondary output (HTML snippet). Every word adds value with 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers both the input and the return values. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. A brief note on error handling would improve completeness, but it is not critical here.
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?
The input schema fully describes the 'address' parameter, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.
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: returning an embeddable SVG badge URL and HTML snippet for a merchant. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_trust or leaderboard, which serve different purposes.
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 intended use is implied ('for the merchant's site'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like check_trust, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.