Resolve a DID into full identity details: profile, supported protocols, on-chain registry entries across 4 chains, public keys. Use to verify any agent you're about to transact with — even an agent first encountered through another platform.
| 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 transparency burden. It discloses the return content (profile, protocols, chain records, keys) and implies read-only behavior, but it does not mention error conditions, availability, or any side effects. This is minimal but not misleading for a simple lookup tool.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and deliverables; the second gives a concrete use case. Information is front-loaded and every word 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?
For a single-parameter tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It could optionally mention whether the DID must be pre-registered or how outputs are structured, but this is not required for basic use.
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 100%, and the schema already describes the 'did' parameter with a pattern, length, and example. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcing 'DID', so it stays at the baseline for fully described schemas.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a DID into full identity details,' and enumerates the exact contents (profile, supported protocols, on-chain registry entries across 4 chains, public keys). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like resolve_agent or search_agents by emphasizing cross-chain and full-identity scope.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use to verify any agent you're about to transact with — even an agent first encountered through another platform.' This sets clear context but does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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.