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 full burden. It discloses the exact output contents (score, grade, uptime, latency, explanation) and input formats, giving a solid account of behavior. However, it does not mention potential error handling or response format, though these are not critical for a simple read-only lookup.
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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output details, while the second specifies input types. Every word contributes useful information, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, what it returns (specific metrics), and what inputs it accepts. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.
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 description already covers the parameter fully (100% coverage), stating the supported address formats. The tool description adds minimal new meaning—it essentially restates the same formats ('Algorand, EVM or Solana addresses, or an https URL') without additional syntax or usage details. Baseline 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 produces a 'trust report' for a single merchant, specifying the output metrics (0-100 score, letter grade, uptime, median latency, explanation). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare_merchants' (comparison) and 'leaderboard' (ranking), making its purpose unambiguous.
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 a single merchant lookup with 'for one merchant' and lists accepted input types, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it. The context is clear enough for selection, but lacks explicit exclusions.
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 distinct purpose: check_trust for a single merchant report, compare_merchants for head-to-head comparison, get_badge_url for generating embeddable badges, and leaderboard for top merchants. There is no overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_trust, compare_merchants, get_badge_url), but 'leaderboard' is a bare noun, breaking the pattern slightly. The inconsistency is minor and the names remain clear and predictable.
Four tools is an appropriate size for a focused trust-check service. Each tool covers a necessary function without bloat or redundancy.
The tool surface covers the core domain: single trust checks, comparisons, badge generation, and top-merchant discovery. No obvious missing operations for a read-only trust service.