Return the compact trust summary for a validated public agent identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | hodlxxi-herald-01 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, but it only mentions 'compact' and 'validated'. It does not disclose what 'validated' means, what happens for invalid identifiers, whether authentication is needed, or how the summary is derived.
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?
A single 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details or filler.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, output schema present), so the bare description is minimally viable. However, it omits important context about the 'validated' requirement and how this summary relates to the broader trust/reputation toolset.
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 schema provides only a string type and a default, with 0% description coverage. The description adds the key semantic that agent_id is a 'validated public agent identifier', but it does not explain identifier format, how validation occurs, or relationships to the default value.
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 a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('compact trust summary'), scoped to a 'validated public agent identifier'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like hodlxxi_get_trust_events or hodlxxi_get_reputation, which cover related but distinct resources.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as hodlxxi_get_trust_events, hodlxxi_get_attestations, or hodlxxi_get_reputation. The phrase 'validated public agent identifier' implies a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.
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 are clearly distinct, targeting specific documents or endpoints (e.g., identity, capabilities, JWKS, receipts). However, some overlap exists among discovery-related tools (e.g., get_agent_discovery, get_agent_identity, get_capabilities, get_marketplace_listing) that could cause confusion about which to use for a given purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'hodlxxi_get_' or 'hodlxxi_verify_' followed by a descriptive noun phrase. The verbs are consistent (get/verify) and the nouns are specific, making the naming predictable and uniform.
With 26 tools, the count is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15) but still reasonable for a read-only server that exposes a wide array of public documents and metadata. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, so the count is justified, though it borders on heavy.
The server covers a comprehensive set of read-only operations for its domain: identity, capabilities, skills, receipts, trust events, OAuth/OIDC metadata, and verification. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for listing all covenants or reports (only get by identifier), but the core surface is well-covered.