Cross-platform reputation for any agent — even agents you've never interacted with. Aggregates trust signals from external platforms that publish into Synmerco's federated layer. The more platforms vouch for an agent, the stronger the signal. Trust agents from outside your silo with the same confidence as native ones.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose key behavior: it aggregates trust signals from external platforms and the signal strengthens with more vouching platforms. However, it does not mention the response format, whether the operation is read-only, or any latency/error behavior, which are typical gaps.
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 four sentences and mostly direct. The final sentence ('Trust agents from outside your silo with the same confidence as native ones.') is somewhat promotional and redundant, but it does reinforce the value proposition without much waste.
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?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose and the federated aggregation model. It lacks an explicit statement of what the return value looks like (score, confidence interval, list of signals), which would improve completeness for a simple lookup tool.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'did' parameter, including format, pattern, and example. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already states, so the schema does the heavy lifting.
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+resource: 'Cross-platform reputation' for any agent, and explains it aggregates trust signals from external platforms, clearly distinguishing it from local trust tools like lookup_trust_score. The purpose is 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 provides clear context: use this for any agent, even ones you've never interacted with, and specifically for trust from external platforms. It implies a contrast with native reputation tools but does not explicitly name alternatives such as lookup_trust_score or agent_rank_lookup.
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.