ProofMart

Pull an agent's conduct record (Conduct Feed)

check_agent_conduct

Read-only

Ask the Conduct Feed — a separate business from ProofMart, whose records are built from ProofMart check receipts — how an agent has behaved: a 0-100 conduct score with its component scores, the evidence mix behind it (event counts by tier, record span, settled payments), contested markings, and a signed attestation. Identify the agent by customer_id (a ProofMart customer number) or by wallet (its x402 payer address). Your OWN record is free when you send your customer key; pulling another agent's record costs $0.05, paid in USDC over x402: a call that needs payment is answered 402 with payment requirements in the PAYMENT-REQUIRED header — pay and retry with the signed payment in the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header. An agent with no history answers standing 'no_record' — never a fabricated score. Full method: GET /conduct/methodology.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_agent_conduct"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wallet`	No	The agent's wallet address (0x…), as used to pay over x402.
`identity`	No	A full identity string: 'customer:<id>' or 'wallet:<address>'.
`customer_id`	No	The agent's ProofMart customer id number.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`score`	No
`evidence`	No
`identity`	Yes
`standing`	Yes
`components`	No
`attestation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, it discloses payment behavior (402 flow, PAYMENT-REQUIRED and PAYMENT-SIGNATURE headers), the free own-record path, the $0.05 cost for another agent, and the no_record fallback. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that annotations do not carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with what the tool returns, then moves to identity, payment, and edge cases in a logical order. It is dense and somewhat long, but every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description still explains the key return shape, the no_record behavior, and the payment flow. It covers the information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly without duplicating schema-only details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by tying customer_id to a ProofMart customer number, wallet to an x402 payer address, and explaining the cost implications of pulling another agent's record. It does not explain the identity parameter's role, which prevents a higher score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it asks the Conduct Feed how an agent has behaved and returns a defined set of artifacts (0-100 score, component scores, evidence mix, contested markings, signed attestation). It also distinguishes the Conduct Feed from ProofMart and names the data source, giving an agent enough to separate it from siblings like list_plans and verify_claim.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear conditions for identifying an agent by customer_id or wallet and explains the own-record-free vs. other-agent-$0.05 distinction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the usage context and payment path are clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ProofMart tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?