Export the agent's current trust score as an UNSIGNED ERC-8004 Validation Registry-shaped payload, content-addressed and ready for YOUR OWN signer to anchor on-chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | Yes | ||
| token_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the payload is unsigned, content-addressed, and does not perform the on-chain anchoring (since it's 'ready for YOUR OWN signer'). This clarifies a key non-obvious trait. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, if it has side effects, or if any preconditions (e.g., existing trust score) are required.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Export') and includes essential qualifiers (UNSIGNED, content-addressed, ready for signer). Every part adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous text.
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 description adequately conveys the core purpose and output format, and an output schema exists to handle return values. However, the lack of parameter explanation and usage alternatives leaves gaps. For a relatively simple tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description could offer more context to ensure 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for chain_id and token_id. It does not explain what these parameters represent or how they affect the export. The schema only provides minimal titles ('Chain Id', 'Token Id'), which is insufficient for an agent to know what values to supply.
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 exports the agent's trust score as an unsigned ERC-8004 payload, with specific verb ('Export') and resource ('current trust score'). It differentiates from siblings like verify_attestation (which verifies) and score_agent (which scores), and the 'UNSIGNED' qualifier makes its purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage: it is for when the user wants an unsigned payload to sign and anchor on-chain ('ready for YOUR OWN signer to anchor on-chain'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some room for interpretation.
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.