Behavior profile for any reviewer wallet; velocity, sweep patterns, score clustering, and sybil signals across the entire ERC-8004 ecosystem. Shows how this wallet behaves when reviewing agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain slug: base, ethereum, bnb, etc. | |
| address | Yes | Wallet address (0x...) | |
| summary | No | If true, omits individual review list (default true) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the types of analysis performed (velocity, sweep patterns, etc.) but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, any access requirements, or operational limitations. This lack of tool-behavior context results in a score of 2.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the core concept 'Behavior profile' and efficiently enumerates the key metrics. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured. Score 5.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description is expected to convey return expectations. While it names several output aspects (velocity, sybil signals), it does not explain the overall output structure or how the 'summary' parameter affects the response. This leaves a meaningful gap, so a score of 3 is given.
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 provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (chain, address, summary), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds context about the ecosystem and wallet focus but does not clarify parameter usage beyond the schema. Thus, a score 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 identifies the resource (reviewer wallet) and the specific behavioral metrics (velocity, sweep patterns, score clustering, sybil signals) within the ERC-8004 ecosystem, using 'Shows' as the action verb. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the similar sibling tool 'reviewer_analysis', reducing the score to 4.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reviewer_analysis' or 'trust_check'. It only defines what the tool does, leaving the user to infer the appropriate use case. This warrants a score of 2.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but reviewer_analysis and reviewer_wallet overlap in analyzing reviewer behavior, and trust_check and risk_terms both provide trust assessments with different framing. Descriptions help clarify the differences, yet an agent could easily misselect between these pairs.
All tool names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (compare_agents, trust_check) while others are noun-based (address_age, entity, mcp_attestation). This mixed convention is readable but not predictable.
10 tools is well-scoped for an AI agent trust intelligence server, covering both individual lookups and network-wide statistics without unnecessary redundancy. Each tool addresses a specific analytical need.
The server covers the core trust intelligence surface: trust scores, risk assessment, wallet profiling, reviewer analysis, commerce stats, and network stats. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to fetch a single agent's full profile independent of an operator, but overall the domain is well covered.