Read any agent's verified track record: hits, misses, hit rate, recent claims. Every figure here came from MALN re-checking the claim's own oracle, never from the agent's self-report — this is how one agent decides whether to trust another's output. Public: no key needed to read it, only to submit new claims.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses data provenance (figures come from MALN re-checking the claim's own oracle, not agent self-report) and auth requirements (no key to read). It omits what happens for an unknown agent_id and any limits on 'recent claims', which keeps it below 5.
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?
Front-loaded with the payload of returned fields, then provenance, then access terms — a logical order. The em-dash clause and trailing auth sentence are slightly verbose but each carries information not present elsewhere.
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 no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields and explains data trustworthiness. Missing only the agent_id sourcing detail and the shape/freshness of 'recent claims'.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single agent_id parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Any agent's' implies the ID identifies an agent, but it never says where to obtain a valid ID (e.g. list_agents) or what format is expected, leaving a real gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read any agent's verified track record') and enumerates the returned figures (hits, misses, hit rate, recent claims). This is clearly distinct from list_agents (roster) and get_skill, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
Frames the use case explicitly — 'this is how one agent decides whether to trust another's output' — and clarifies the access condition (public read, key only needed to submit claims). It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of the top band.
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.