[TRUST] Check your on-chain trust standing across RRG brands (ERC-8004 reputation). Trust levels: standard (new) → trusted (3+ purchases) → premium (10+ purchases). Higher trust unlocks better voucher offers and priority access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_wallet | Yes | Agent wallet address on Base |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the trust level thresholds (standard/trusted/premium) and their implications, making it clear this is a read-only check without side effects. It doesn't contradict any annotations.
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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by trust level definitions and implications. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the '[TRUST]' label.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the meaning of possible outcomes, and why it matters. No significant gaps exist.
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 has 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'agent_wallet' with an explicit regex pattern and 'Agent wallet address on Base'. The tool description adds no extra parameter details, and the baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high.
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 specifies the verb 'Check' and the resource 'your on-chain trust standing across RRG brands (ERC-8004 reputation)'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on reputation levels, which is unique among the listed tools.
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 when to use the tool (e.g., to see what trust level you have and what benefits you qualify for) but does not explicitly state guidelines or exclude alternatives. The mention of 'Higher trust unlocks better voucher offers and priority access' hints at usage context but lacks explicit when-to-use statements.
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.
Several tool pairs could be confused, such as get_offers vs get_redemption_offers, get_world_eggs vs discover_egg, and the human vs agent purchase flows (initiate_purchase/confirm_purchase vs initiate_agent_purchase/confirm_agent_purchase). The descriptions are detailed and mostly disambiguating, but the presence of a retired tool (create_concierge) and multiple similarly named status/check tools add ambiguity.
The vast majority of tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_drops, submit_design, redeem_points, verify_world_id). Minor deviations include 'priscilla_post' (proper noun prefix) and the interchangeable use of get/check/verify for status-like tools, but the overall convention is consistent and readable.
With 44 tools, the server is well above the 25-tool threshold that makes a surface feel heavy. Even though the platform covers many domains (commerce, affiliate, design, quests, concierge, marketing), this many tools strains discoverability and agent decision-making.
The buyer and designer flows are well covered (search → detail → purchase → download; brief → submit → status), but the brand side is incomplete. register_brand promises the ability to create briefs and product listings, yet no tools exist to create briefs or products, and there are no update/delete/refund operations for any resource, leaving registered brands at a dead end.