Record an interaction outcome for an agent. kind: success | delivered | dispute_won | failure | undelivered | dispute_lost | timeout | security_incident (security incidents carry a 3x penalty).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| note | No | ||
| weight | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| counterparty | No |
| 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 full burden. It discloses the 3x penalty for security incidents but does not mention other behaviors like idempotency, side effects, or duplicate 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and list of kinds. It could be more structured but contains no unnecessary 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 5 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to describe most parameters and lacks guidance on usage context beyond kind.
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 description must explain parameters. It only describes 'kind' with allowed values, leaving agent_id, note, weight, and counterparty unexplained despite agent_id being required.
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 verb 'record' and the resource 'interaction outcome for an agent', listing all allowed kind values. It distinguishes from sibling tools like attest or describe_agent, which serve different purposes.
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 lists allowed kind values and notes the penalty for security incidents, giving implied usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
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 targets a distinct operation: issuing attestations, self-description, history retrieval, outcome recording, score querying, and verification. No overlaps.
Tools mostly follow verb_noun pattern (describe_agent, record_outcome, score_agent, verify_attestation), but 'history' is a noun-only exception. Still clear and predictable.
Six tools cover the core trust oracle functionality without bloat. Each tool serves a necessary role in the lifecycle.
Covers recording outcomes, querying scores, and managing attestations. Lacks a tool to list agents or modify outcomes, but these are plausible intentional constraints.