AIDEN

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. With no output schema, the description usefully discloses what the returned record contains (including 'USDG settlement evidence'), which the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of noting freshness, caching, or error behavior for an unknown agent_id.

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 with no filler; the colon-delimited field list is the most compact way to convey record scope. Every clause earns its place.

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 absent output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the record's contents, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Adequate for a one-parameter lookup, though it omits what happens for a nonexistent or malformed agent ID.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains that agent_id is the ERC-8004 agent ID (token ID in the Identity Registry). The description adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Full AIDEN record for one agent') and enumerates the record contents — profile, owner, wallet, reputation, validations, trust score, settlement evidence. That enumeration implies it is the superset of get_agent_feedback and get_agent_validations, but those siblings are never named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus search_agents or the narrower get_agent_feedback / get_agent_validations calls. The 'full record' framing hints at usage but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape: entries are classified (receipt, rating, metric, self, revoked) with a normalised 0-100 rating, and results are ordered newest first.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the resource and ordering are front-loaded and the second sentence delivers the return-value classification. Every clause earns its place.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so reasonably (classification categories, normalised rating). Pagination is left entirely to the schema, which documents page/limit adequately, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so agent_id, page, and limit are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the implicit ordering ('newest first'), which mildly extends the schema's pagination semantics but does not clarify the parameter formats themselves.

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 ('Feedback left for an agent in the ERC-8004 Reputation Registry') and adds ordering ('newest first'). It is naturally distinct from the sibling get_agent_validations, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is a read-only getter that returns feedback for a given agent, so an agent can infer when to call it. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_agent or get_agent_validations.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the 'latest 100' result cap, but says nothing about ordering semantics beyond 'latest', pagination past 100, or behavior when an agent has no validations.

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 tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the result count and the resource. Nothing needs to be trimmed or moved.

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 should characterize the return, and it does: validation requests and responses, capped at the latest 100, from a named registry. Only the pagination/ordering edge case is left implicit, which is a minor gap for a one-parameter read 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single agent_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its ERC-8004 Identity Registry token ID meaning. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (validation requests and responses) scoped to an agent and names the source registry (ERC-8004 Validation Registry), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_agent_feedback. It is clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 what is returned but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer on its own whether to call this versus get_agent_feedback or get_agent.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by explaining what the returned metric actually means (indexer lag vs. chain head) and its diagnostic purpose.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool measures and followed immediately by the triggering condition. 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?

For a no-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description conveys what the value represents and when to look at it. Mentioning the return format or units of lag would close the remaining minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 states a specific measurement ('how far the AIDEN indexer is behind the Robinhood Chain head'), which is far more informative than the title's restatement. It is clearly distinct from the agent-focused siblings, though it never names itself as a diagnostic/status read explicitly.

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?

'Check this when results look empty or stale' gives an explicit triggering condition for invocation. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the diagnostic context is unambiguous.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the bar for the description is lower. The description adds value by enumerating which dimensions are aggregated, but says nothing about data freshness, caching, or whether the totals are global or scoped.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the scope ('Totals across the AIDEN index') and then enumerates the returned dimensions. No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing that fails to earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of saying what comes back, and it does list the five aggregate dimensions. It falls short only in not indicating the shape of the response (single object of numeric totals vs. nested breakdown) or whether values are counts versus currency.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is reported at 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and the description introduces no conflicting or confusing parameter claims.

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 names a concrete resource (the AIDEN index) and the exact aggregates returned (agents, owners, feedback, validations, settled USDG), which is far more specific than a tautological restatement of the title. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_agent and get_agent_feedback, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_indexer_health, the closest neighbor.

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?

Usage is only implied: the name and description suggest a lightweight overview call, and a zero-parameter stats tool is nearly self-selecting. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of get_indexer_health as the alternative for health-style checks, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds domain context about the underlying registry (Robinhood Chain, ERC-8004), but says nothing about pagination behavior, defaults, or result shape beyond what the annotations and schema provide.

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 tight sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, then capabilities. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant with the title.

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 6-param, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers the search, filter and sort surface adequately. It omits any mention of pagination (page/limit) or the readable_only default, but those are fully documented in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning by specifying that query matches over 'names and descriptions' and that sorting is possible by 'trust score, feedback count or settled USDG', mapping natural-language concepts onto the sort enum values more clearly than the schema alone.

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?

It gives a specific verb+resource: 'Search the AIDEN directory of AI agents registered on Robinhood Chain (ERC-8004)'. This clearly contrasts with single-entity siblings like get_agent and get_agent_feedback, though it never names them explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 lists capabilities (full-text search, owner filter, sorting) which implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or any exclusion pointing to get_agent for single-record lookups. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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