Get an agent's decay-weighted trust score in [0,1] and tier. Unknown agents get a neutral 0.5 prior — no blind trust, no unfair zero.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the neutral prior for unknown agents, but does not explain 'decay-weighted' or mention idempotency, rate limits, or 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, no fluff, front-loaded with the key output (score and tier). Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple scoring tool with an output schema (presumably explaining return values), the description covers the essential behavioral aspect (unknown agent handling). It could mention the decay mechanism briefly, but overall it is complete enough.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description minimally adds context for the single parameter 'agent_id' by stating it's for an agent. However, it does not specify format, constraints, or how to obtain the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the low complexity.
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 it retrieves a decay-weighted trust score and tier for an agent, with specific behavior for unknown agents (0.5 prior). This is distinct from sibling tools like 'attest' or 'describe_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?
The description explains what the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to prefer this over 'describe_agent' or 'history'). Usage context is implied but not explicit.
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.