issue_passportIssue an agent passport with identity, sponsor lineage, and a 5-tier reputation system. Stored as a BLAKE3-hashed fact. Tiers: unverified (0), basic (10+ receipts), established (100+), trusted (500+), elite (2000+). Required before sync operations. Idempotent: calling twice returns the existing passport.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sponsor_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 reveals important traits: idempotency ('calling twice returns the existing passport'), storage mechanism ('BLAKE3-hashed fact'), and a prerequisite ('Required before sync operations'). It does not mention potential side effects or error behaviors, but these are mitigated by idempotency and the presence of an output schema.
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 front-loaded, with three sentences covering purpose, storage, tiers, idempotency, and usage prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, though the tier list could be seen as a detail but it is relevant to the reputation system. Slightly longer than necessary but still efficient.
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 tool has an output schema, return values do not need to be explained. The description covers the core functionality, storage, idempotency, and usage context. It lacks explicit error scenarios or permission requirements, but the low parameter count and simple behavior make it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 schema has only one parameter, sponsor_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'sponsor lineage', which hints that sponsor_id is the ID of the sponsor, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's role or format. It adds some meaning but could be more direct in mapping sponsor_id to the lineage concept.
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 purpose with a specific verb 'Issue' and resource 'agent passport', and elaborates on the components: identity, sponsor lineage, and 5-tier reputation system. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'get_passport' which is for reading, and the mention of 'Required before sync operations' ties it to sync operations.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Required before sync operations.' This gives clear context for deployment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the sibling list and the read-vs-write distinction implicitly cover that. The idempotency note also informs that repeated calls are safe.
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 have overlapping purposes: check_claim and memory_claim_check are the same function with different tiers, get_freshness_report and memory_freshness_report are duplicates, get_correction_chain and compare_versions both trace history, and investigate_question subsumes many other retrieval tools. This will cause agent misselection.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_constraints, declare_constraint, sync_pull, etc.). Exceptions like memory_claim_check, memory_freshness_report, session_debrief, and verify_before_acting deviate but are relatively few. Overall the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
75 tools is excessive for a memory server. Many are highly niche or direct duplicates (e.g., paid/free versions of the same function). The count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers and introduces cognitive overhead without proportional value.
The server covers a wide array of memory, constraint, decision, skill, and sync operations, which is impressive. However, there are notable gaps: no direct delete or edit for memory facts (only corrections/versioning), and no bulk enumeration of all stored items. The redundancy in retrieval tools also suggests an incomplete design.