Get details for a specific ERC-8004 or Solana-8004 agent by network and identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | No | The numeric agent ID (for EVM chains) | |
| network | Yes | The blockchain network (base, ethereum, polygon, bsc, monad, solana) | |
| assetAddress | No | The asset address (for Solana) |
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 clearly indicates a read operation ('Get details') but does not discuss error behavior, authentication, or return format. For a simple getter, this is 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?
A single sentence with 14 words, front-loaded with the primary action. No filler or redundancy.
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 has a simple purpose, but the description does not explain the return object's shape, and the identifier selection is not fully clarified. No output schema exists to compensate. However, for a getter, it is minimally complete.
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 description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already says. The mention of 'identifier' is ambiguous (agentId vs assetAddress), but the schema clarifies this.
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 retrieves details for a specific agent, identifies the standards (ERC-8004/Solana-8004), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_agents by focusing on a single agent.
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 phrase 'specific agent' implies it is for fetching one agent rather than listing all, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.
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 separated by resource and action, and the two-step payment workflows are explicit. The main risks are request_endpoint_credit_purchase_payment vs request_endpoint_topup_payment and browse_marketplace vs get_featured/get_top_rated, which could cause occasional misselection.
The dominant snake_case verb_noun pattern is consistent across list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, request_*_payment, *_with_payment, and vault_* tools. Minor deviations like vault_how_to_backup and the long list_my_agent_bindable_endpoints prevent a perfect score.
48 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and spans at least six distinct domains: marketplace, campaigns, datasets, endpoints, products, agents, and vault. This creates significant navigation overhead and would be better split into focused per-domain MCP servers.
Core lifecycle flows for endpoints, datasets, and agent registration are covered well, including payment challenges and wallet-first registration. However, campaigns lack get/delete operations, products lack create/delete, agents lack deregistration, and vault backup/restore is only documented via vault_how_to_backup rather than executable tools.