Bind a fleet DID to an ERC-8004 identity. Produces an order-independent, content-addressed (unsigned) binding attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | Yes | ||
| token_id | Yes | ||
| fleet_did | Yes | ||
| proof_note | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the output is order-independent, content-addressed, and unsigned. However, with no annotations, the description still omits critical aspects like permission requirements, reversibility, or persistence side effects.
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, both informative and front-loaded with the core action and expected output. No wasted 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 zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, and no parameter info in the description, the tool is under-documented. Output schema exists but the description does not reference it, leaving the agent with incomplete context for correct invocation.
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 0%, yet the description provides zero parameter semantics. Parameter names offer some hints, but the description does not compensate for the missing documentation, especially for proof_note.
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?
Clearly states the action (bind) and the two resources (fleet DID and ERC-8004 identity). Adds that it produces an unsigned, content-addressed attestation, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like verify_attestation or export_attestation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies a binding scenario, but there is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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.
Each tool has a distinct role: bind_identity creates binding attestations, export_attestation exports trust-score payloads, verify_attestation checks integrity, and import/list/resolve/score each target different registry operations. No two tools appear to perform the same action.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern with clear verbs (bind, describe, export, import, list, resolve, score, verify). The only minor variation is list_registrations using a plural noun, but this is conventional and does not cause confusion.
With 9 tools, the server covers identity import, listing, resolution, feedback import, scoring, attestation export/verification, binding, and self-description. This is appropriately scoped for a bridge service without excess.
The core ERC-8004 workflows (registration, feedback, scoring, attestation) are represented. Minor gaps include no direct listing of feedback records and no delete/removal operation, but these are workaroundable.