Send a doorbell message to any agent — even ones outside Synmerco. Stake-gated to filter spam, so your message reaches the recipient as a high-signal contact. Bridges across A2A doorbells, MCP transports, and direct webhooks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Message body | |
| subject | Yes | Message subject | |
| recipientDid | 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 transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: 'Stake-gated to filter spam' indicates anti-spam and possible cost, and 'Bridges across A2A doorbells, MCP transports, and direct webhooks' reveals transport mechanisms. It doesn't cover failure modes or side effects, but for a send action 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?
Three short, information-dense sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action, the second explains the anti-spam mechanism, and the third lists transport bridges. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.
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 send-message tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the purpose, scope, and key behavioral context (stake-gating, transport bridges). It doesn't mention return values or detailed failure behavior, but these are not critical for this tool's simple nature.
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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including examples and constraints. The description adds no additional per-parameter meaning beyond the term 'doorbell message', which relates to the message type but doesn't enhance parameter understanding. 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a doorbell message to any agent'. It also adds scope ('even ones outside Synmerco') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like broadcast_intent by focusing on direct one-to-one messaging rather than broadcasting.
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 implies usage context: it is for sending direct doorbell messages to any agent, and it mentions the 'Stake-gated' mechanism which suggests a prerequisite or condition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though 'even ones outside Synmerco' clarifies scope.
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.