AGENZA Reputation Protocol

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the rate limit, which is a key constraint. However, it does not discuss error handling, authentication, or idempotency. For a simple query tool, the rate-limit disclosure is sufficient.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the purpose, the second adds the rate-limit constraint. 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?

With no output schema, the description hints at the return value (score 0-850). The tool is simple, and the description covers the essential context for an agent to decide to call it. The presence of sibling tools is noted but not elaborated.

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 schema has 100% coverage with one required parameter agentPrincipal described as 'ICP principal of the agent'. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 function: 'Get an agent's credit score (0-850)'. It specifies the metric (credit score), range, and source (on-chain reputation data). The tool name and description are distinct from siblings like register and verify.

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 mentions a rate limit (100 queries/day for free tier) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agenza_info or agenza_register. The use case is implied but not clearly differentiated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as retrieving information (version, stats, tools), which implies a read operation and no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention authentication requirements, or discuss any rate limits or data freshness.

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, consisting of two short sentences. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and no extraneous information is included. Every word serves a purpose.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, it does not mention any prerequisites, authentication, or whether the tool is publicly accessible. For a simple info tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by specifying the kinds of information returned (version, stats, available tools), which goes beyond the empty schema. Providing more detail about the structure of the returned data would further improve this score.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'AGENZA canister info', listing specific contents (version, stats, available tools). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like agenza_credit_score (which focuses on credit) and agenza_register (registration).

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 mentions 'useful for discovering the protocol's capabilities', implying it should be used before other tools to understand available functionality. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions registration and the return of DID and identity record, but lacks details on duplicate handling, error responses, or idempotency. This is adequate but not 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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the purpose and critical requirement. Perfectly concise.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, key requirement, and return value. No gaps for this scope.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the publicKey parameter with format details. The description only restates that a valid key is required, adding no new information 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 clearly states 'Register an agent identity on the AGENZA protocol,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like agenza_credit_score, agenza_info, and agenza_verify, which serve different purposes.

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 notes the requirement of a valid secp256k1 public key, providing a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the sibling tools cover distinct functions, making the usage context clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool checks structure, expiry, and revocation status, and that it returns a verification result. This provides good insight into the tool's behavior, though it does not mention side effects or error cases, which are minimal for a read-only verification tool.

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and key behaviors. Every word is necessary and no information is redundant. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 absence of an output schema, the description only states that it returns a verification result with an optional reason. This is somewhat vague; it does not specify the format or possible values of the result, nor does it mention error handling. While adequate for a simple tool, additional detail on the output structure would improve completeness.

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 100% as the single parameter 'credentialId' has a description. The tool description adds context that the credential is a W3C Verifiable Credential, but this does not significantly enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'W3C Verifiable Credential'. It specifies what checks are performed (structure, expiry, revocation) and that it returns a result with an optional reason. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agenza_credit_score or agenza_register, which serve different purposes.

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 that the tool should be used to verify credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any when-not-to guidance. The description is adequate for understanding its purpose but lacks usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.