inam-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it by explaining the semantics of the returned fields: 'countersigned' vs 'independently_verified', the meaning of components.attestedReceipts > 0, and that an 'attestation_rejected' flag is a strong negative. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown agentId or any auth/rate-limit context, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and returned fields, then layers in interpretation warnings in a compact set of sentences. Dense but each sentence contributes; the field-semantics clauses are slightly run-on but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what is returned and how to read it — and it does, naming the reputation components, the evidenceLevel distinctions, and the negative attestation flag. An agent has enough to invoke the tool and act on the result.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter and the schema already documents it as a 'did:key:... id'. The description's 'Takes a did:key agent id' merely restates that, adding no format, validation, or resolution detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (an agent's INAM reputation) and enumerates what comes back: trust score, finalized-receipt count, success rate, dispute flags. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like inam_search_agents (discovery) and inam_get_receipt (single receipt).

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?

Gives clear context for when to call it ('before deciding whether to trust or transact with it') and adds decision guidance ('Do not decide on trustScore alone: check evidenceLevel first'). It does not name a sibling alternative or state an exclusion condition, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result includes signed, countersigned verification records (implying cryptographic attestation and a read-only fetch), but says nothing about auth requirements, not-found behavior, or whether the records are independently verifiable or merely returned.

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, zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the usage scenario. The illustrative claim example earns its place by anchoring the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description conveys the primary return content (receipt plus verification records). It could go further on what a verification record contains or what an unsigned/invalid receipt looks like, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as a 'sha256:... receipt id'. The description adds no format, source, or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered single-parameter schema applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single execution receipt by id') and adds that verification records come with it. The 'single ... by id' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling search/bulk tools, but no sibling is named, so it falls short of the explicit differentiation a 5 requires.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering scenario — checking a claim like 'agent X says it did job Y' against the signed record — which tells an agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. when to use inam_search_agents instead) or any when-not condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is deterministic and verifiable ('anyone holding that text can recompute'), which implies a pure, side-effect-free computation, but it never states whether any auth/scope is needed or that nothing is persisted. Adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences: the purpose/output format is front-loaded and the second sentence adds the verification nuance. No 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?

For a single-parameter pure function with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return format ('sha256:<64 hex>') and the exactness requirement, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'exact spec or output text' largely restates the schema, adding the emphasis that exactness matters but no new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Compute') and resource (the sha256 content hash) and even nails the required output format 'sha256:<64 hex>'. It also ties the hash to concrete fields (specHash/outputHash), so the agent knows exactly what artifact this produces.

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?

It explains the context of use: producing hashes that INAM requires for specHash/outputHash, and instructs passing the exact text. It doesn't name when-not to use it or an alternative, but the sibling tools (reputation, receipt, search) are unrelated so no routing conflict exists.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read/search operation and hints that reputation is visible in results, but says nothing about authentication requirements, result limits or pagination, whether minReputation is inclusive, or what happens with zero matches.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the discovery/trust use case immediately following. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and use context, and the phrase 'see how trusted they are' hints at the return shape. It stops just short of describing result content or limits, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so both parameters (capability, minReputation) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description only restates the filter concepts and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail (e.g., capability string matching rules), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find INAM-registered agents') plus the filter criteria (capability and/or reputation), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like inam_get_receipt or inam_hash_content, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearest conceptual neighbor, inam_check_reputation.

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?

'Use this to discover a counterparty for a task' gives a clear implied context, but there is no when-not guidance and no routing to the alternative (inam_check_reputation) for verifying a single already-known agent. Adequate minimum-viable guidance rather than explicit selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.