Top merchants by trust score, optionally filtered to one network (e.g. base-mainnet, algorand-mainnet, solana-mainnet).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries to return (1-50, default 10) | |
| network | No | Optional exact-match network filter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys the main behavior (top merchants by trust score, optional network filter) but does not disclose ordering direction explicitly (though 'top' implies descending trust score), read-only nature, or behavior for invalid networks. For a simple read-only list tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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, concise sentence with examples. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 has only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate for invocation but does not describe the return format or edge-case behavior. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap rather than a major omission, but it could be improved by stating what the response contains.
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 schema already describes both parameters (limit and network), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete network examples (base-mainnet, algorand-mainnet, solana-mainnet) and clarifying that network is optional, making parameter usage more actionable.
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 returns top merchants ranked by trust score, optionally filtered by network. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_trust (individual checks), compare_merchants (comparison), and get_badge_url (badge URL generation).
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 viewing a leaderboard and provides network filter examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Given the sibling tools have distinct purposes, the use case is inferred rather than explicit.
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.