Get the Verified by MolTrust badge status for an agent.
Returns badge tier, trust score, grade, issue/expiry dates,
and embeddable SVG URL.
Args:
did: The DID of the agent to check
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes | The DID of the agent to check, e.g. did:moltrust:a1b2c3d4e5f60718 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / did / descriptionAdded value: +"The DID of the agent to check, e.g. did:moltrust:a1b2c3d4e5f60718"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only profile. The description adds the returned fields, but those are also covered by the output schema, and it does not add auth requirements, rate limits, or side-effect context beyond what the annotations provide.
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 short and front-loaded, with the core action and return values stated first. The Args section is redundant with the schema, but the overall text remains 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?
This is a simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotations. The description is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though it could better route the agent away from sibling 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the single did parameter with an example. The description only restates that it is the DID of the agent to check, adding no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the Verified by MolTrust badge status for an agent.' It clearly explains what is returned, but does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as mt_check_badge or mt_get_trust_score.
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 implies that this tool checks an agent's badge, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with alternatives like mt_check_badge or mt_get_trust_score.
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.