Get Scan Results
Get recent A2A Agent Card scan results.
Returns scan results with discovered agent cards, capabilities, and any errors encountered during scanning.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns discovered agent cards, capabilities, and errors, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the return content.
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 concise and structured with a heading, summary, and response section. It avoids excessive detail, though the opening 'Get Scan Results' and 'Get recent A2A Agent Card scan results' are somewhat redundant.
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?
For a simple GET endpoint with two pagination parameters, the description provides basic return information (agent cards, capabilities, errors) but misses key context such as how pagination works (limit/offset defaults and effects) and any conditions under which scan results are available. Without an output schema, more detail would be expected.
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%, and the tool description says nothing about the limit and offset parameters. The parameter names are intuitive (pagination), but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving default behavior and constraints unexplained in prose.
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 'Get recent A2A Agent Card scan results' with a specific verb (get) and resource (scan results). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trigger_scan_api_scanner_scan_post by focusing on retrieval rather than initiation.
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 implies this tool is for retrieving scan results, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., trigger_scan_api_scanner_scan_post for initiating scans) or mention any prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with descriptions that differentiate related operations like discovery vs. scanning or mint vs. melt quotes. A few pairs (e.g., list_agents vs. a2a_public_discovery, get_agent vs. discover_single_agent) could cause confusion, but the endpoint paths and descriptions mitigate this.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a descriptive operation prefix followed by the full API path and HTTP method (e.g., list_agents_api_agents_get, create_melt_quote_api_payments_ecash_melt_quote_post). No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles.
With 36 tools, the server is overloaded. Even though it covers multiple domains (directory, trust, discovery, payments), the count exceeds the 25+ threshold and likely should be split into focused sub-servers. The tool set feels sprawling rather than well-scoped.
The core workflows for agent registration, search, trust, A2A discovery, scanning, and ecash payments are well-covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no update or delete agent operations and no way to modify agent details post-registration, but these are not critical dead-ends for the platform's purpose.