get_protocol_adoptionHow many indexed agents touch each major protocol/surface (ERC-8004 verified, Virtuals tokens, Agentverse, x402/Bazaar, HuggingFace, GitHub). Useful for ecosystem-state questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adoption | No | ||
| last_updated | No | ||
| total_agents | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by defining what is counted ('indexed agents') and enumerating the protocol/surface categories, which clarifies the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.
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?
A single sentence delivers the full purpose, scope, and example categories with no filler. The structure is ideal for quick comprehension by an agent.
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 no parameters, a rich annotation set, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's context. It explains what the tool counts, which protocols/surfaces are covered, and when it is useful, leaving no critical gap.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. Per the rubric, baseline for zero params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than nonexistent parameters.
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 provides counts of indexed agents per major protocol/surface, listing specific examples (ERC-8004, Virtuals, Agentverse, x402/Bazaar, HuggingFace, GitHub). This specific scope differentiates it from sibling tools like get_ecosystem_summary or get_category_ranking.
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 explicitly notes it is 'useful for ecosystem-state questions,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: comparison, discovery, details, history, trust, rankings, ecosystem summaries, methodology, movers, categories, search, and verification. There is no meaningful overlap that could cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., compare_agents, find_agents, get_agent_trust, verify_counterparty). The pattern is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
14 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool maps to a distinct query type for the AgentCrush domain. The scope feels well-covered without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers discovery, detail, history, trust, comparison, ranking, and ecosystem-level analytics. The only notable gap is a lack of a direct 'list all agents' tool; the full ranked list is provided via external URL rather than a first-class tool, but this is a minor limitation given find_agents and search_agents cover discovery.