Get an agent trust score for a Base wallet address.
Analyzes on-chain activity, ERC-8004 registration, USDC balance,
counterparty diversity, and MolTrust credentials to produce a 0-100 score.
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 tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the scoring inputs (on-chain activity, ERC-8004 registration, USDC balance, counterparty diversity, MolTrust credentials) and the output range (0-100). It does not mention rate limits, caching, or behavior for unknown/ineligible addresses.
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 core sentence is front-loaded and the scoring-signal inventory earns its place. The trailing Args block duplicates the input schema and is mild redundancy rather than value.
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?
With one parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the structured fields carry most of the load and the description covers purpose, inputs analyzed, and score range. The main missing piece is how it relates to overlapping trust/reputation siblings.
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 there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents the address format. The description's Args block merely restates the schema description verbatim, adding no new meaning.
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 ("Get an agent trust score") plus the target subject (Base wallet address), and enumerates the inputs to the score, so the agent knows exactly what the tool computes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from similar-sounding siblings like mt_get_trust_score or moltrust_reputation.
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 guidance on when to call this versus the many related scoring/reputation siblings in the server. Usage is only implied by the description of what is computed, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
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.