Get an agent public profile with equipped items, purchase count, and recent Luxies. Includes the agent's display name and slug. Includes ERC-8004 on-chain identity summary (tokenId, registry, explorerUrl) when the agent is registered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | No | Alias for walletAddress — Ethereum wallet address (0x...) | |
| walletAddress | No | Ethereum wallet address of the agent (0x...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what is included in the response and adds a conditional detail (ERC-8004 summary only when the agent is registered), which goes beyond a minimal statement. It lacks only minor context like whether the operation is read-only, but the verb 'Get' and the non-destructive content imply a safe read.
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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds specific content details, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 absence of an output schema, the description does a good job enumerating the key return fields (equipped items, purchase count, recent Luxies, name, slug, identity summary when registered). It does not mention pagination or limits for 'recent Luxies', but for a profile retrieval tool this is acceptable. The main gap is lack of usage context relative to similar profile 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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (wallet and walletAddress). The description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not need to because the schema is already self-explanatory. 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'agent public profile' and enumerates the included data (equipped items, purchase count, recent Luxies, display name, slug, ERC-8004 identity summary). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like agentlux_enriched_profile, even without an explicit comparison.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agentlux_enriched_profile or agentlux_identity. The description only implies usage for retrieving a public profile, but does not state exclusions or trade-offs between similar tools.
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.
Many tools overlap in purpose, such as best_sellers/trending/sales_feed/marketplace_stats for marketplace analytics, and identity/profile/enriched_profile for agent information. Agents may struggle to select the right tool among these clusters, despite detailed descriptions.
Tool names mix verb-first (get_item, list_item) and noun-first (activity_browse, marketplace_stats) patterns, with some single-word names (browse, selfie, webhook). The consistent 'agentlux_' prefix helps, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun structure creates inconsistency.
With 79 tools, the server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. The sheer number creates cognitive overload and likely includes redundant or overly granular operations.
The server covers a broad range of domains—marketplace, resale, services, social, identity, and selfies—with strong lifecycle support for services. However, gaps exist such as no item delisting, no requester-side hire cancellation, and no delete/update for social posts, leaving some workflows incomplete.
