Agent Zero — ERC-8004 Trust Filter

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully handles transparency. It states the tool returns 'no owner identity string and no payment amounts — those are paid', which is a critical behavioral disclosure. It also notes the return of an 'error' field if the agent is not indexed. This is honest and informative.

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 exceptionally concise with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then lists parameters, then described returns succinctly. Each sentence adds unique value—purpose, params, returns, usage hint. The structure is ideal for an agent to quickly parse.

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 has an output schema only described inline (no formal output schema), the description covers all needed behavioral and return details. It lists all returned fields, flags what is not returned, and notes error behavior. For a 2-parameter tool with clear inputs, this is complete. Minor omission: no explanation of how 'reachability' or 'well-known presence' are determined, but likely domain-knowledge.

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 description provides semantic detail for both parameters: 'chain: one of "base", "ethereum"' and 'agent_id: the numeric ERC-8004 agent id'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which only lists types and titles. With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates. The only minor gap is that it doesn't clarify the allowed formats for chain values explicitly (though implied).

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 returns 'counts-only signals for one ERC-8004 agent', listing specific fields like reachability, TLS validity, and agent status. The verb 'get' paired with 'agent_summary' makes the purpose obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_coverage_stats and get_leaderboards by focusing specifically on a single agent's summary.

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 ends with 'Use this to vet a counterparty agent before transacting', which implies a specific use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings. The context suggests it's for pre-transaction vetting but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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 discloses that the tool returns counts only, specifies what data is included and excluded, and mentions 'Live coverage' implying real-time data. It does not describe side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but for a read-only stats tool, the transparency is good.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key constraint ('Returns counts only'). Every sentence provides value: context, included/excluded data, and a usage statement. 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a thorough overview of what the tool returns (counts per chain, specific categories) and its use case. It could be more explicit about the exact output structure, but it is sufficient for a simple stats 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?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter info since none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate further.

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 returns 'Live coverage of the ERC-8004 agent economy' as counts only, specifying the chains (Base and Ethereum) and what is included (agents, MCP servers, OpenAPI, etc.) and excluded (no names, addresses, handles). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_agent_summary by emphasizing aggregate counts rather than detailed agent info.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to size the market and see where capability density is growing,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names (get_agent_summary, get_leaderboards) imply that this tool is for aggregate stats, not detailed agent data.

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 full burden. It discloses output fields (agent_id, chain, public name, shareable URL, count) and explicitly states what is NOT included. It mentions three lists, adding behavioral context. No side effects or auth needs are mentioned but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 concise with efficient sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then details the three lists. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but overall clear and not verbose.

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 description covers output content and exclusions, but lacks details like sorting order, pagination, data freshness, or definition of 'recently indexed'. Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete to fully set expectations.

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 has zero parameters, so per guidelines baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond schema, but none are needed.

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 that the tool returns top ERC-8004 agents by live capability and most recently indexed, specifying three ranked lists. It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly stating what is included and excluded (names and counts only, no owner wallets etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides usage context: use to find most capable/active agents to integrate or watch. It sets expectations by listing what the output contains and explicitly what it omits. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or compare directly with siblings.

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, but the description discloses that the tool returns a truncated preview (capped to 200 nodes), which is a key behavioral trait. It does not discuss safety, authorization, or rate limits, but for a read-only teaser, the disclosed information is adequate.

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 three sentences long, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: defining the tool, describing the output, and providing usage guidance. No redundant information, 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 no parameters, no output schema, and simple sibling tools, the description is fairly complete. It explains the output and usage, but could have added a note about being read-only or safe. Still, it provides enough for agent selection.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter info. However, it compensates by explaining the return values (nodes, edges, capped). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 it returns a capped subset of the agent-to-agent payment graph (nodes and edges) with a limit of ≤200 nodes. It distinguishes itself by mentioning a full paid endpoint, and the sibling tools are different types (summary, stats, leaderboards), so there is no ambiguity.

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 says 'Use it to see who pays whom in the agent economy; the full graph... is the paid endpoint below,' which gives an implicit usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to sibling tools. It provides enough guidance for a simple tool.

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