Issue a W3C Verifiable Credential (AgentTrustCredential) for a wallet.
The credential contains the agent's trust score, Sybil score,
ERC-8004 registration status, and MolTrust verification status.
It is cryptographically signed with Ed25519 (JWS).
Args:
address: Base (EVM) wallet address (0x...)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the credential is cryptographically signed with Ed25519 (JWS), which is useful. However, it does not state whether issuance is a write operation, if it requires authentication, is reversible, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like action.
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 compact and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, then lists credential contents, notes the signing method, and concludes with the parameter specification. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section could be integrated more tightly.
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 an output schema (not shown) that likely covers return values, so that is not required. The description explains the input and the nature of the credential. However, it lacks information about prerequisites, error conditions, or whether issuance is idempotent. For a single-parameter tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.
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 only says 'address' is a string. The description adds critical semantic detail: it must be a Base (EVM) wallet address with a 0x prefix, and it is the subject of the credential. This goes beyond the schema and effectively documents the parameter.
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 action (issue), the resource (W3C Verifiable Credential of type AgentTrustCredential), and the subject (a wallet). It also enumerates the credential's contents, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from the sibling verify tool.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like moltguard_credential_verify. It implies issuance but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or guidance on when to prefer this over other credential-issuing tools among the siblings. The distinction is left to inference.
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.