Quick on-chain reputation check using only the PayCrow Reputation contract. Free, no API keys needed. Use trust_score_query for the full composite score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Ethereum address of the agent to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that only the PayCrow Reputation contract is used, that the operation is free, and that no API keys are required. However, it does not mention the output format, error possibilities, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Quick on-chain reputation check'), and followed by useful caveats (free, no API keys) and an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 single-parameter tool, the description gives the purpose, scope, cost, and an alternative, which is helpful. However, with no output schema, the agent remains unsure about the return value or result format, which is a notable 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 input schema fully documents the only parameter ('address' with description). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but given the high schema coverage (100%), a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Quick on-chain reputation check using only the PayCrow Reputation contract.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling 'trust_score_query' by noting it is the quick version and that the full composite score requires the other tool.
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 communicates when to prefer this tool ('Quick', 'Free, no API keys needed') and explicitly recommends 'trust_score_query' for a full composite score, providing an alternative. It does not spell out when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between trust_gate, trust_onchain_quick, and trust_score_query, which all relate to checking agent trustworthiness. While each has a slightly different focus (quick check vs. full breakdown vs. decision recommendation), an agent might struggle to choose the right one in some scenarios. The escrow and payment tools are clearly differentiated.
The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., escrow_create, escrow_release, rate_service), but there are deviations like safe_pay (adjective_verb) and x402_protected_call (alphanumeric prefix). These outliers break the pattern slightly, though the majority of tools follow a clear convention.
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose of handling escrow, payments, and trust management. Each tool appears to serve a specific function in the workflow, from creating escrows to checking trust scores, without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the escrow and payment domain, including creation, dispute, release, status checks, rating, and trust assessment. It supports both automated (safe_pay) and manual (x402_protected_call) workflows, with no obvious gaps in the lifecycle or functionality needed for secure transactions.