Compare two agents side-by-side before picking one. Trust scores, completed transactions, dispute rates, and reputation tier — the data you need to hire confidently across protocols. Free, no auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did1 | Yes | Decentralized Identifier (e.g. did:key:z...) | |
| did2 | Yes | Decentralized Identifier (e.g. did:key:z...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no auth is required ('Free, no auth required') and explicitly lists the return data (trust scores, completed transactions, dispute rates, reputation tier). Though 'compare' implies a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state no side effects, but the information provided exceeds minimal expectations.
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 sentences, immediately states purpose, and front-loads the action ('Compare two agents side-by-side'). Every phrase earns its place, with no filler 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?
The tool is simple (two parameters, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, timing, return data, and auth. It omits error behavior or protocol specifics, but those are not critical for a comparison tool. The listed data points make the response expectations clear.
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%, so the schema fully documents did1 and did2. The description adds the cross-protocol context, but otherwise does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two agents side-by-side'), clearly distinguishing it from single-agent lookup tools like agent_rank_lookup or lookup_trust_score. It also lists the specific metrics returned, making the 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 phrase 'before picking one' situates the tool in a decision-making context, and 'across protocols' signals its cross-protocol applicability. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over siblings.
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.