Get a detailed agent trust report for a Base wallet address.
Returns full scoring breakdown, wallet history from Blockscout,
ERC-8004 registration, MolTrust DID cross-reference, and Sybil indicators.
Args:
address: Base (EVM) wallet address (0x...)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Base (EVM) wallet address (0x...) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / address / descriptionAdded value: +"Base (EVM) wallet address (0x...)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuine value by disclosing the data sources it aggregates (Blockscout wallet history, ERC-8004 registration, MolTrust DID, Sybil indicators), which implies external calls and possible latency. It stops short of saying anything about caching, rate limits, or behavior when an address has no on-chain history.
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?
Front-loaded: the one-line purpose comes first, followed by the return contents. Slightly redundant in restating the 'address' parameter that the schema already documents, but otherwise tight with no 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?
An output schema exists, so the return-value enumeration is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. What is missing is the disambiguation from moltguard_score/moltguard_sybil and any note on failure or empty-result behavior for unregistered wallets — the main gaps for an agent choosing between near-identical tools.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'address' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's Args block repeats that same text verbatim (Base EVM address, 0x...), adding no format details, validation rules, or examples beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource: a detailed trust report for a Base wallet address, and enumerates the report's components (scoring breakdown, Blockscout history, ERC-8004, DID cross-reference, Sybil indicators). It does not, however, distinguish this from closely named siblings like moltguard_score or moltguard_sybil, so an agent cannot tell purely from the description which to pick.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Given siblings moltguard_score and moltguard_sybil cover overlapping ground, the absence of routing ('use this instead of X when you need the full aggregate') leaves selection ambiguous. Usage is only inferable from the word 'detailed'.
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.