Log an agent action on-chain via Tracea (immutable audit trail, court-ready). Requires TRACEA_API_KEY env var. The action is signed by the account's wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Optional human-readable payload (JSON string recommended) | |
| action_type | Yes | Short action type, e.g. 'email_sent', 'payment_initiated' | |
| agent_address | Yes | Ethereum address of the acting agent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses several behavioral traits: the record is immutable and court-ready, the tool requires a specific env var (TRACEA_API_KEY), and the action is signed by the wallet. These go beyond the raw purpose and inform the agent of security and permanence implications.
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 long, front-loads the action with 'Log', and includes essential contextual details (immutability, API key, signing) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
While the description covers key aspects, it omits the return value (e.g., transaction ID) and potential side effects like gas costs or failure modes. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has no information about what to expect after invocation, leaving a notable gap.
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. The description does not add additional parameter-specific details nor clarify relationships between parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline established by the schema.
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 uses the specific verb 'Log' with the resource 'agent action on-chain via Tracea', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are read/verify operations. This is a precise and unambiguous definition.
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 by being the only write/log tool among readonly siblings, making it obvious when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling names themselves clarify this.
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.
