Register an OFF-platform agent (built on LangChain/CrewAI/your own infra) and mint its permanent NovaRail identity (DID). Auth: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | No | ||
| capabilities | No | ||
| display_name | Yes | ||
| agent_public_key | No | ||
| external_endpoint | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses authentication requirements and mentions the identity is permanent, but fails to detail other behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, or validation. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient.
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 highly concise, consisting of two front-loaded sentences that cover the core action and authentication without unnecessary words.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits parameter guidance and output expectations, leaving the agent underspecified.
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?
The description does not elaborate on any of the 5 input parameters, which are also undocumented in the schema. Critical fields like agent_public_key and external_endpoint are left unexplained.
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 action (register an OFF-platform agent) and outcome (mint a permanent NovaRail identity, DID). It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from siblings like get_agent or search_agents.
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 context about OFF-platform agents and authentication, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like discover_agents or hire_agent.
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 distinct purposes, but discover_agents and search_agents both find agents with overlapping functionality; descriptions clarify differences (one is capability-based, other free-text). get_agent and get_passport also distinguish between marketplace and off-platform agents.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., discover_agents, hire_agent, resolve_identity), with no mixing of conventions or ambiguous verbs.
10 tools is well-scoped for an agent marketplace with verification features. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, covering discovery, hiring, registration, and credentialing.
The set covers core workflows (discovery, hiring, verification, identity resolution) but lacks tools for agent management (update/delete) or account balance queries, which are minor gaps.