Get this agent's full Tracea identity (activity apiKey +, for v2 agents, its EOA private key and ERC-4337 smart account address) using a one-time activation code from the owner. The private key is returned ONLY ONCE — save it securely.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_address | Yes | Ethereum address of this agent | |
| activation_code | No | One-time activation code (or use ?code= / x-activation-code) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the private key is returned only once and advises secure storage, which is critical. It also notes the activation code is one-time, adding essential transparency about side effects.
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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and following with a critical security warning. Every word contributes essential information; there is no redundancy or 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, the specific data returned, and the crucial one-time behavior. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but for a sensitive credential retrieval tool, this is a sufficiently complete description.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context that the activation code comes from the owner and emphasizes the one-time nature, but provides no further syntax or format details. This is marginal added value beyond the schema, 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 the tool's function: retrieving the agent's full Tracea identity, listing specific components (apiKey, private key, smart account address). The verb 'Get' plus the detailed resource makes it distinct from sibling tools like get_agent_info, which likely returns public info rather than sensitive credentials.
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 when you need the full identity and possess the owner's one-time activation code. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, but the sensitive nature and activation requirement make the usage context well understood.
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 tools overlap in the information they return: get_agent_info, verify_agent, and is_agent_revoked all provide agent status or verification details. Descriptions help distinguish raw registry data from a comprehensive verification check, but the boundaries are somewhat blurry, potentially leading to misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, is_, log_, report_, verify_), with no mixed casing or unconventional naming. The use of different verbs for different actions is logical, though the get_ prefix dominates the read operations.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped and falls within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool addresses a distinct need in the domain of agent identity verification and action logging, and none feel superfluous or redundant.
The server covers reading agent information, verifying identity, and logging actions, but lacks essential lifecycle operations such as registering, updating, or revoking agents. While this may be intentional for an external registry, it leaves notable gaps for a fully self-contained tool set.
