Skip to main content
Glama

Reputation decay check

wever_reputation-decay-check
Read-only

Agent Reputation: submit one reputation score’s aging rules: the headline score with the window it states (such as 12 months or all time), the aging method (none, a window, linear across a window, a half-life or steps) with its window, half-life or the weight from each age on, and optionally the entries the score reads with each one’s date and outcome, the recent period read against older volume (90 days when left out) and the moment to read it at. The signed report gives the weight a result keeps at one month, six months and one, two and three years, the recent failure rate beside the weighted failure rate the score reads and the share of the weight older jobs carry, and names a reputation that never ages: years-old results weighted the same as last month’s, no window stated for the headline score and recent failures diluted by old volume, then a decay so slow that a two-year-old result keeps half its weight, an all-time window, a headline window that differs from the rule’s, an incomplete rule and undated entries, with the fix for each. Two evaluation runs compared for drift are wever_evaluation-drift-check, prior answers against a later change are wever_answer-freshness-check and a trust score computed from verified work is wever_agent-trust-scorecard. Verdict never_ages, aging_gaps, aging_unverified or ages_with_time. POST /api/reputation-decay-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-reputation-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-reputation/.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "aging": "<aging>"
    },
    "name": "wever_reputation-decay-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agingYes
as_ofNoThe moment to read the score at.
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
scoreNo
recentNoThe recent period read against older volume, such as 90 days; 90 days when left out.
entriesNoThe entries the score reads.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces that with 'reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write.' Beyond that it discloses pricing (0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact), a shared quota of 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to exact JSON arguments plus route, and an Ed25519 signed receipt. That is substantial context the annotations do not carry; it stops short of discussing idempotency or retry behaviour for a non-idempotent POST.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two enormous run-on sentences, the first roughly 100 words and the second roughly 130 words enumerating eight failure modes. There is real content, but it is not front-loaded, not broken into bullets, and the enumeration of pathological cases is compressed into an unreadable clause chain. An agent has to parse dense prose to extract the verdicts and the input shape.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a nested-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is complete: it explains the return report (weights at fixed ages, recent vs. weighted failure rate, share of weight carried by older jobs), enumerates all four verdicts (never_ages, aging_gaps, aging_unverified, ages_with_time), gives the HTTP route and payment/authentication requirements, and points to the contract and human docs. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description walks through the parameter space — headline score with its stated window, method (none, window, linear, half-life, steps) with its window/half-life/step weights, optional entries with date and outcome, the 90-day recent default, and the as-of moment — which largely mirrors the schema. At 67% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most fields, so the description adds mostly framing rather than new per-field meaning; the closest thing to added semantics is the explanation of what 'weight from each age on' means, which the schema also states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: submit a reputation score's aging rules and receive a signed decay report showing the weight a result keeps at 1, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. It also names three siblings it is not (evaluation-drift-check, answer-freshness-check, agent-trust-scorecard), so an agent can route away from it. The purpose is clear but embedded in a very long opening sentence rather than stated crisply up front.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit alternatives are given with their distinguishing conditions: two evaluation runs for drift, prior answers against a later change, a trust score from verified work. That covers when to pick a sibling instead. What is missing is a direct statement of when this tool is the right choice, though the input contract (you supply a headline score, an aging method and entries) implies it strongly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources