Issue a Verified by MolTrust badge for an agent.
Tiers: 'verified' (score 40+, $5), 'trusted' (score 60+, $20).
Badge is valid for 1 year and auto-revokes if trust score drops.
Args:
did: The DID of the agent to issue a badge for
tier: Badge tier — 'verified' or 'trusted'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes | ||
| tier | No | verified |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses badge validity (1 year) and auto-revocation on score drop, plus costs. However, it does not state whether the tool enforces the score thresholds before issuing, whether credits are deducted, or what side effects (e.g., on-chain/off-chain records) occur.
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 logically structured: purpose first, then behavioral details/options, then parameter explanations. It is mostly free of fluff, though tier values are repeated in the prose and Args section—minor redundancy that slightly reduces conciseness.
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 an output schema present and only 2 simple parameters, the description covers the core invocation semantics: what the tool does, tier choices, costs, and validity. It is missing potential error/precondition guidance (e.g., insufficient credits, score not meeting threshold, duplicate badge prevention), but overall it is adequate for correct use.
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 0%, so the description's Args section is essential. It explains 'did' as the agent's DID and 'tier' with explicit allowed values ('verified'/'trusted'), adding meaning far beyond the bare property names, defaults, and types.
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 'Issue a Verified by MolTrust badge for an agent,' which is a specific verb (issue) and resource (badge) with clear scope. The tool name and description uniquely identify this as a badge-issuing action, distinct from siblings like mt_check_badge, mt_get_badge, and moltrust_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?
The description provides clear context: tiers with score thresholds and costs, validity period, and auto-revocation. It implies this tool is for issuing badges when an agent qualifies, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as moltrust_verify or mt_issue_music_credential, nor state when not to use it.
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.