Decay-weighted trust score in [0,1] + tier over the agent's imported ERC-8004 feedback — recent behavior outweighs old; no feedback scores a neutral 0.5 prior (no blind trust, no unfair zero).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | No | ||
| token_id | No | ||
| bridge_did | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: decay-weighted recency, neutral 0.5 prior for no feedback, and the rationale ('no blind trust, no unfair zero'). This goes beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't detail tier computation or error handling.
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 core purpose ('Decay-weighted trust score in [0,1] + tier'). It includes meaningful details without unnecessary verbosity, though the dash-heavy structure could be slightly clearer.
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 explains the scoring logic well, but for a tool with three optional parameters and no parameter descriptions, it lacks essential input context. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage guidance prevent the description from being fully complete for an agent invoking this tool.
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%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (chain_id, token_id, bridge_did) or how they relate to the agent being scored. The agent is left without any information about what values to supply or their semantic meaning, making parameter selection effectively guesswork.
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 computes a decay-weighted trust score and tier from imported ERC-8004 feedback. It uses a specific verb ('score') and resource ('agent's imported feedback'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_agent or resolve_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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for obtaining a trust score, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with resolve_agent or describe_agent. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
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.