[FREE] Protocol-wide SolvScore credit stats: agents scored, total credit capacity in USDC, reputation bonds outstanding and slashed, quotes issued versus approved (the decline rate), plus average and top trust score. Useful for sizing the agent credit market before you lend into it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is FREE and presents read-only aggregate stats, which is adequate for a zero-parameter query. It does not explicitly discuss rate limits or freshness, but these are low-risk gaps for a simple stats endpoint.
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 a single dense sentence followed by one purpose-driven sentence. Every phrase adds value: scope, FREE marker, contained metrics, and intended use case are all front-loaded and there is no filler.
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, an output schema that will define the return shape, and a simple read-only stats operation, this description is complete. An agent knows the scope, the metrics, that it is free, and when to use it.
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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description appropriately does not waste space on irrelevant parameter details.
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 starts with '[FREE] Protocol-wide SolvScore credit stats' and enumerates the exact metrics included (agents scored, credit capacity, bonds, quotes vs approvals, trust scores). The resource is specific and the protocol-wide scope distinguishes it from per-agent tools like get_agent_credit_score.
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?
It gives a clear use case: 'Useful for sizing the agent credit market before you lend into it.' This tells an agent when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.