Send Outreach
Admin endpoint to send trust score outreach to a specific agent contact.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| contact_email | Yes |
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 only mentions a generic 200 response and does not disclose side effects (e.g., email dispatch), required permissions beyond 'Admin', error responses, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.
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 short and front-loaded with the core action. However, the first line 'Send Outreach' is redundant with the tool name, and the response section is generic. Overall, it is concise and readable, with only minor waste.
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 endpoint with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks error handling, authentication requirements, and details about the response payload or whether outreach is actually sent. The agent would need more information to fully understand the result and potential failures.
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 compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'specific agent contact' but does not explicitly define 'agent_id' or 'contact_email'. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value and does not map them to the tool's workflow.
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's purpose: 'Admin endpoint to send trust score outreach to a specific agent contact.' This uses a specific verb ('send'), a specific resource ('trust score outreach'), and target ('specific agent contact'), distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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 provides clear context by labeling it as an 'Admin endpoint' and specifying it sends trust score outreach to a specific agent contact. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficiently clear for a unique action.
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.