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 |
| 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 carries the behavioral burden and does substantive work: it discloses the data signals analyzed (on-chain activity, ERC-8004 registration, USDC balance, counterparty diversity, MolTrust credentials) and the 0-100 output. It does not mention caching, staleness, or failure modes, but these are minor gaps for a read-only score lookup.
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: a one-sentence summary, a one-sentence behavioral explanation, and a brief Args annotation. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
For a single-required-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough. It identifies the input format, the scoring inputs, and the output range; the output schema can carry return-value details, so nothing essential is missing.
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 provides no parameter description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining that address must be a Base (EVM) wallet address in 0x... format. This is exactly the semantic detail the schema lacks, giving an agent sufficient detail to call the tool correctly.
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 verb and resource: get an agent trust score for a Base wallet address, and specifies the score range (0-100). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as mt_get_trust_score or moltguard_credential_verify.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when you need a numerical trust score for a Base wallet address. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, so an agent must infer the boundaries between this and similar trust/verify tools.
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.