Aval

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds meaningful context: score range, data source filtering (ERC-8004 reviews on Base tied to real USDC payments from wallets the agent did not fund), and a $0.01 x402 cost. It does not explicitly state read-only safety or failure modes, preventing a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and methodology, then input and cost. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, scoring methodology, input format, and cost, which is strong for a 1-param tool with no annotations or output schema. Missing only sibling differentiation and explicit usage guidance.

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 0% and the schema only defines a string, so the description adds essential meaning by specifying accepted input formats: a 0x address or ERC-8004 agent id. This compensates well for the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checking an AI agent's trust score, with the 0-100 range. It does not differentiate from the sibling reputation_overview, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Implies usage with 'before paying it', giving some context, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance. The sibling reputation_overview is not mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call is free and read-only statistics, plus the shape of the data (reviews, rated agents, last block) and an external report link. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or freshness beyond 'last block'.

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 dense sentence with no filler; the free/scope framing is front-loaded and the parenthetical efficiently enumerates the returned figures. Slightly compressed but every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content — and it does, listing reviews, rated agents, last block, and a report link. For a zero-parameter read tool this is largely complete, though it omits any note on caching or data sourcing caveats.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 names a specific resource and scope: global ERC-8004 reputation figures on Base, with concrete return fields (reviews, rated agents, last block) and a link to a full report. The verb is implicit (a read/overview), but an agent can tell this is an aggregate statistics tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling check_agent_trust, which is the only gap.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling check_agent_trust is never mentioned. The word 'Global' faintly implies this is aggregate rather than per-agent, but the agent is left to infer that check_agent_trust is the per-agent alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.