Agent DNS. One call returns everything about any agent: profile, trust scores (SynmercoScore + AgentRank), listings, supported protocols, payment methods, rate cards, referral attribution. Works for agents inside Synmerco AND agents discovered from outside — the bridge to a unified view of every addressable agent.
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's broad aggregation behavior and that it works across internal/external agents, but does not mention potential errors, side effects (though none expected), or operational concerns like rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.
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 compact and front-loaded: 'Agent DNS' sets an instant mental model, followed by a concise enumeration of return values and the key internal/external scope. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description lists the major content areas that will be returned, giving a solid expectation of the response. It also clarifies the tool's reach (internal and external). A slightly longer list of exact field names or a note on failure modes would make it fully complete.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'did' parameter with a clear description and pattern. The tool description adds no extra detail about the parameter beyond calling it an 'addressable agent' identifier, so the baseline of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('everything about any agent'), enumerating concrete data categories (profile, trust scores, listings, protocols, payment methods, rate cards, referral attribution). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_rank_lookup or lookup_trust_score, which are more specialized.
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 tool when you need a unified, comprehensive view of any agent, whether internal to Synmerco or external. It implies a contrast with narrower sibling tools, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them.
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.