ERC-8004 agent-census stats — per-chain registration counts, distinct agents, and URI-scheme mix from the latest sealed on-chain sample, with the run's batch-sha256 attestation and honest per-run chain coverage. Returns an Ed25519-signed receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Optional chain filter (e.g. 'polygon', 'base'). Case-insensitive exact match; a chain absent from the latest sealed day returns count=0. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and discloses meaningful behavior: the data comes from the 'latest sealed on-chain sample,' the result includes batch-sha256 attestation and 'honest per-run chain coverage,' and the output is an Ed25519-signed receipt. It could additionally state read-only/side-effect or authentication implications, but the key behavioral traits are well covered.
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 a single dense, front-loaded sentence that opens with the resource identity and then lists the metrics, attestation, coverage, and receipt format in order. There is no filler or repetition; every clause contributes useful information.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description reasonably compensates by enumerating the main response contents: per-chain counts, distinct agents, URI-scheme mix, attestation, coverage, and signed receipt. The remaining gap is that 'honest per-run chain coverage' and the receipt's exact structure are not elaborated, which would be more important if the tool were more complex.
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 the input schema already documents the optional chain filter, case-insensitive exact matching, and the count=0 behavior for absent chains. The tool description only adds the contextual 'per-chain' framing, so it provides little semantic value beyond the schema; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific deliverable ('ERC-8004 agent-census stats') and enumerates exact metrics: per-chain registration counts, distinct agents, URI-scheme mix, batch-sha256 attestation, chain coverage, and an Ed25519-signed receipt. This makes it easy for an agent to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like agent_attestation without opening schemas.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it serves census/statistics requests over the latest sealed on-chain sample and supports an optional chain filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of full routing, but the intended usage is clear.
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.
Several tool pairs overlap heavily: permit_lookup, search_permits, and jurisdiction_index all address permit discovery, while web_policy_history and enclosure_evidence_pack both track the same robots.txt/ai.txt/llms.txt/TDM-Rep policy surface. Agents would need to read very long descriptions carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
All names are snake_case but the pattern is mixed: most are noun phrases like agent_census_stats and web_policy_history, while request_quote, search_permits, and verify_contractor_license use verb-first naming. The names are readable but do not follow one consistent convention.
Fifteen tools is at the high end of a reasonable scope, and the set spans permits, datacenter indices, agent attestations, web policy history, and quote requests. The count is not absurd, but it feels like several different products bundled into one server.
The permit lookup/search/rebate/contractor side is reasonably covered for read-only queries, and there is useful verification and attestation tooling. However, the 'Agent Market' side has no way to browse or complete a purchase beyond one request_quote action, and some data products like datacenter and agentic commerce feel disconnected from the core permits domain.