Generates a cryptographic attestation report verifying an autonomous AI agent wallet, x402 EIP-3009 payment capability, counterparty reputation score, and zero-drainer history on Base. Price: 0.020 USDC on Base or Solana.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| signed_at | Yes | ||
| agent_wallet | Yes | ||
| service_domain | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verified | Yes | ||
| trust_score | Yes | ||
| agent_wallet | Yes | ||
| attestation_tier | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent_wallet / descriptionRemoved value: -"Agent or merchant EVM wallet address (0x...)"Input schema / properties / messageAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / service_domain / descriptionRemoved value: -"Optional x402 service domain to verify"Input schema / properties / signatureAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / signed_atAdded value: +{
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "agent_wallet"
-]New value: +[
+ "agent_wallet",
+ "service_domain",
+ "message",
+ "signature",
+ "signed_at"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "agent_wallet": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "attestation_tier": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "trust_score": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "verified": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "agent_wallet",
+ "verified",
+ "trust_score"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the price (0.020 USDC) and the supported chains (Base or Solana), but it does not explain required signatures, payment mechanics, or what the report contains.
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 no wasted text, front-loading the core verification scope before the pricing detail. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a paid, open-world verification tool with five required parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition omits critical details: parameter semantics, signature requirements, and how the USDC payment is supplied.
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 must carry parameter meaning, but it does not explain any of the five required parameters. It only loosely implies that an agent wallet and cryptographic verification are involved; service_domain, message, signature, and signed_at are entirely undocumented.
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 action ('Generates a cryptographic attestation report') and lists the verification dimensions: agent wallet, x402 EIP-3009 capability, counterparty reputation, and zero-drainer history on Base. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as checkWalletDrainer, analyzeEvmWallet, or auditEip712Signature.
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, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.
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.