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 carries the burden. It states the return value (URL + snippet) but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. For a getter, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential return info. No wasted words or redundant details.
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 adequately explains what it returns (URL + HTML snippet). However, it could mention format or error cases, but the simplicity makes it fairly 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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'address' parameter. The description adds 'merchant' context but does not meaningfully expand on the schema's already-detailed address format 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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('badge URL') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_trust and leaderboard by mentioning the embeddable SVG URL and HTML snippet.
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 when a merchant needs a trust-badge URL but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. The sibling contexts suggest different purposes, but no exclusions or guidance are given.
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.