Graph-based EigenTrust reputation for any agent. Unlike SynmercoScore (which counts your own transactions), AgentRank measures trust transitively — your score rises when high-trust agents choose to work with you. The signal that survives Sybil farming. Free, no auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes | Decentralized Identifier (e.g. did:key:z...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses how the score works ('measures trust transitively', 'your score rises when high-trust agents choose to work with you') and states it's 'Free, no auth required', adding meaningful behavioral context. It doesn't mention potential caveats like caching or response format, but for a lookup tool this is fairly 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?
The description is concise, with four short, information-dense fragments. Every clause adds value: the type of reputation, the contrast with SynmercoScore, the mechanism, and the access requirements. No fluff or repetition.
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 lookup, the description gives enough context: what it measures, how it works, and that it requires no auth. Although there's no output schema, the return value (a reputation score) is implied by the phrase 'reputation for any agent' and 'your score rises'. It's complete for the tool's complexity.
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 covers the only parameter (did) with a clear description and pattern. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific detail, but the phrase 'for any agent' implies the did identifies an agent. This meets the baseline but doesn't add beyond the 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?
The description clearly states it provides 'Graph-based EigenTrust reputation for any agent', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from SynmercoScore by explaining the difference, 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?
It explicitly contrasts with SynmercoScore ('Unlike SynmercoScore (which counts your own transactions)'), indicating when to prefer this tool for transitive, Sybil-resistant reputation. It doesn't name sibling tools like lookup_trust_score, but the conceptual alternative is clearly given, providing solid usage context.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, especially in reputation (agent_rank_lookup, lookup_trust_score, federated_reputation, resolve_agent, get_identity) and discovery (marketplace_search, semantic_search, search_agents, browse_intents). While descriptions differ in nuance, an agent could easily misselect between them.
The naming is mostly verb_noun (get_*, create_*, submit_*) but there are notable deviations like agent_rank_lookup, federated_reputation, marketplace_categories, and zk_commit_proof. Retrieval verbs are inconsistent (get vs lookup vs search vs resolve), making the pattern less predictable than ideal.
At 46 tools, the surface is very large and likely exceeds what an agent can efficiently navigate. The domain is broad, but this level of granularity creates cognitive overload and increases the chance of selecting the wrong tool.
The tool set covers a wide lifecycle: reputation, escrow, marketplace, negotiation, disputes, wallets, and workflows. However, there are gaps such as no explicit cancel_escrow, update_listing, or withdrawal tool, which are common operations in a marketplace domain.