Trust firewall between pipeline stages. Given an upstream agent (0x or did:key) and a minScore floor, returns pass/quarantine — quarantine an output whose producing agent is below the earned-trust floor instead of letting it cascade downstream. Replaces a human-set confidence threshold with earned trust.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | Yes | 0x wallet or did:key of the upstream agent. | |
| minScore | No | Trust floor (default 30). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 describes the core behavior (returns pass/quarantine based on trust floor) but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the tool is read-only. This is adequate but could be more comprehensive.
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 three sentences long, dense with meaning, and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No extraneous information, every sentence adds value.
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 (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and use case. However, it does not specify the exact output format (e.g., string, object), which would improve completeness. The sibling context helps situate it within a larger ecosystem.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds context by mentioning the default value for minScore (30) and clarifying the role of agent as an upstream producer. Since schema coverage is 100%, this additional context justifies a score above baseline.
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: a trust firewall that returns pass/quarantine based on an upstream agent's trust score. It distinguishes itself from human-set thresholds, making it specific and unique among siblings.
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 when to use the tool (pipeline stages requiring trust gating) and implies its role in automating trust-based decisions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, which would further enhance guidance.
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.