[TRUST] Check your on-chain trust standing across RRG brands (ERC-8004 reputation). Trust levels: standard (new) → trusted (3+ purchases) → premium (10+ purchases). Higher trust unlocks better voucher offers and priority access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_wallet | Yes | Agent wallet address on Base |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful context on trust levels (standard, trusted, premium) and their thresholds, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention return format, or address any network/auth requirements. The additional info about trust benefits is helpful but not fully 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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. The trust level definitions are presented as a compact, scannable list. Every sentence adds value with 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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately explains its purpose and the meaning of trust levels. It does not explicitly describe the return value format, but 'check your standing' implies the output is your current trust level. Given the low complexity and complete schema, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is suitable.
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 describes the parameter (agent_wallet: string, pattern, description 'Agent wallet address on Base'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 the tool's function: 'Check your on-chain trust standing across RRG brands (ERC-8004 reputation)'. It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource (on-chain trust standing) and scope (across RRG brands), distinguishing it from siblings like check_my_commissions or get_offers.
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 when to use the tool by explaining that higher trust unlocks 'better voucher offers and priority access', suggesting it's useful before purchasing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, nor does it compare with sibling tools like get_agent_readiness or get_offers.
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 with clear category tags. Minor potential confusion between get_current_brief vs list_briefs and get_brand vs get_brand_mcp_endpoint, but descriptions clarify intent.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores, e.g., check_agent_standing, list_drops, submit_design. No mixing of conventions.
32 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a wide domain including browsing, purchasing, design submission, concierge, and marketing. Each tool serves a specific function, though some consolidation could be possible.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of browsing, purchasing, design creation, commissions, and concierge services. Minor gaps like refund handling are absent, but the core workflows are well-supported.