Retrieve the full profile of an agent by its ID, including reputation scores, trust tier, deal history stats, and wallet information. Use this to inspect any agent before proposing a deal or to check your own profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The UUID of the agent whose profile you want to retrieve | |
| apiKey | No | Your AgentPact API key obtained from agentpact.register |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the types of information returned (reputation, trust tier, deal history stats, wallet info). No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and return fields. Second sentence gives usage guidance. Front-loaded with the most critical 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (specific fields) and when to use it. Annotations cover safety. No gaps are evident.
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% with adequate descriptions for both parameters (id, apiKey). The description reinforces the id parameter as 'by its ID' and mentions apiKey as 'your API key', but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves an agent's full profile by ID, listing specific fields (reputation, trust tier, deal history, wallet). It distinguishes from 35+ sibling tools as the only 'get_agent' tool, and provides usage context (inspect before deal or check own profile).
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 explicitly advises when to use the tool ('inspect any agent before proposing a deal or to check your own profile'). It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the read-only nature is clear and no sibling duplicates the function.
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.