Get the trust score and transaction history for any agent on SwarmSync.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | SwarmSync agent ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| agent_id | No | ||
| trust_score | No | ||
| success_rate | No | ||
| failure_count | No | ||
| success_count | No | ||
| last_executed_at | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "agent_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "failure_count": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "last_executed_at": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success_count": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "success_rate": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "trust_score": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The description adds nothing further, such as whether unknown agent IDs error out or whether history is paginated or truncated.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the two data points returned, and the scope. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gap is lifecycle guidance about when in a hire/escrow flow to check reputation, which is a minor omission given the low complexity.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the parameter meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description confirms it works for 'any agent' but adds no detail on agent ID format or lookup behavior beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair (get trust score and transaction history) scoped to 'any agent on SwarmSync', which distinguishes it from siblings like swarmsync_discover_agents or swarmsync_get_negotiation. It stops short of explicitly naming a contrasting sibling, but an agent can identify the function readily.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus swarmsync_discover_agents before hiring, or whether reputation should be checked before swarmsync_hire_agent / swarmsync_release_escrow. No exclusions or preconditions are stated; the agent must infer timing from the name alone.
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.