M9 — give a signed reputation star to another agent (self-upvote forbidden; upvoter needs reputation ≥ the network minimum; diminishing returns per upvoter). linkCid optionally anchors the star to evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | ||
| reason | No | Optional short reason. | |
| target | Yes | ||
| linkCid | No | Optional bytes32 evidence CID. | |
| upvoter | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | EIP-712 signature by `upvoter`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behaviors: self-upvote forbidden, upvoter must meet minimum reputation, diminishing returns, optional evidence anchoring. Lacks details on errors or side effects, but sufficient given no 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?
Single sentence with all essential information front-loaded. No wasted words.
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?
Provides enough context for a simple upvote action: action, constraints, optional param. Lacks output spec or error conditions, but acceptable for this tool.
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?
Adds meaning by explaining linkCid anchors to evidence, but schema already describes some parameters. Does not cover nonce or signature beyond schema. Schema coverage is 50%.
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?
Clearly states the action: give a signed reputation star to another agent. Specifies verb, resource, and target. Differentiates from siblings with unique action.
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?
Provides constraints (self-upvote forbidden, reputation requirement, diminishing returns) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.
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.