check-peerCheck another agent's trust score and governance history. Returns trust score (0-100), chain length, attestation count, and tier. Free, no API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | ID of the peer agent to look up |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds value by noting the tool is free, requires no API key, and specifying the exact return fields, which are not covered by 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?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists the return values. There is no fluff or redundancy; every part contributes meaning.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the rich annotations, the existence of an output schema, and the description's inclusion of cost/auth behavior and return fields, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema provides 100% documentation coverage for the single parameter, with a clear description ('ID of the peer agent to look up'). The tool description does not add further param details, but this is unnecessary given the schema's completeness.
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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('another agent's trust score and governance history'), and enumerates the return fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like verify and status by focusing on peer trust assessment.
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 implies usage for checking a peer's trust, but does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, though the specificity of the purpose makes the intended context reasonably clear.
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 action or resource: attest creates provenance records, bind declares intent, bundle aggregates evidence, verify checks policy pre-execution, verify-outcome validates results, and verify-token authenticates release tokens. Even the verify-* family is clearly differentiated by timing and purpose.
Tool names consistently use lowercase imperative verbs, with hyphenated modifiers for multi-word names (check-peer, verify-outcome, verify-token). The pattern is mostly consistent, though some tools are bare verbs (attest, bind, health) while others include a noun, creating a minor deviation from strict verb_noun style.
Nine tools is well within the ideal range for this domain. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the agentic identity trust lifecycle, from evidence creation to verification and peer assessment, without redundancy or excessive sprawl.
The tool surface covers the core workflow: intent binding, policy verification, provenance attestation, outcome verification, token verification, and compliance bundling. Minor gaps exist such as missing explicit revocation or role management, but agents can complete the primary governance lifecycle.