Get reputation records for an agent or service. Provide agent_id for agent reputation, service_id for service reputation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | Period filter, e.g. '2026-03' or 'all-time'. | all-time |
| agent_id | No | Agent ID to look up reputation for. | |
| service_id | No | Service ID to look up reputation for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the parameter-specific context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then gives parameter guidance, making it easy to scan.
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 read-only lookup tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers the core usage and parameter selection. However, the period filter is not mentioned in the description, and there is no explicit differentiation from sibling tools.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description restates the agent_id/service_id distinction but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, and does not mention the period parameter.
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's function: retrieving reputation records for an agent or service. It distinguishes from sibling tools like marketplace_get_agent and marketplace_get_service, which likely retrieve entity details rather than reputation.
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 provides clear guidance on parameter usage: use agent_id for agent reputation and service_id for service reputation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings or state 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 targets a distinct resource and action: agent by ID, reputation records, service details, category listing, and search. There is no ambiguity between tool purposes.
All names follow a consistent 'marketplace_' prefix with verb_noun structure (get_agent, get_reputation, get_service, list_categories, search). The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a marketplace read-only server, covering lookup and search without unnecessary clutter. Each tool earns its place.
The read-only focus is complete for browsing and retrieving marketplace entities, but lacks explicit list operations for agents and services. Search fills this gap reasonably, so only minor gaps exist.