Register (or idempotently update) an agent identity. Returns a deterministic content-addressed DID. capabilities is a non-empty list of lowercase capability tags other agents can discover you by.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| pubkey | No | ||
| pricing | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| endpoint | No | ||
| capabilities | Yes | ||
| reputation_hint | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses idempotency and the return type (DID). However, with no annotations, it fails to mention permissions, side effects on repeated use, or how updates affect existing data.
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 concise with two front-loaded sentences. However, it could briefly list key parameters for better scannability.
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 7 parameters and 2 required, the description omits parameter details and usage context. An output schema exists but is not referenced; the description mentions the return DID, which helps.
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%, but the description adds constraints for 'capabilities' (non-empty, lowercase). No other parameters (e.g., agent_id, name) are described, leaving significant gaps.
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 registers or idempotently updates an agent identity and returns a deterministic DID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like describe_agent or revoke_agent by focusing on creation and update.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., discover_agents, resolve_agent). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
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 purpose: describe_agent for self-description, discover_agents for search, list_registrations for listing, register_agent for creation/update, resolve_agent for lookup, revoke_agent for soft deletion. No overlap.
All tools follow the verb_noun pattern: describe_agent, discover_agents, list_registrations, register_agent, resolve_agent, revoke_agent. Consistent and predictable.
6 tools is appropriate for an identity registry, covering all core operations without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool surface covers registration, resolution, discovery, listing, revocation, and self-description. The register_agent is idempotent, so updates are covered. No obvious gaps for the domain.