What other wallets have said about an Arc agent on chain: every ERC-8004 reputation entry for it (who gave it, the value, the tags, whether it was revoked) and the registry's own summary. Includes the weekly uptime records the APEX Watchtower writes. Free, 200 calls a day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | Yes | the agent id in Arc's ERC-8004 registry |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 discloses the data returned (reputation entries, summary, uptime records) and the rate limit (200 calls/day), adding meaningful context. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but it is clearly implied. It adds value beyond the schema by describing the output composition.
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 sentence that efficiently packs the core purpose, the included data, and the rate limit. It is front-loaded with the main function and appends constraints. While dense, there is no redundancy or 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 thoroughly explains what is returned: reputation entries with specific fields, registry summary, and uptime records. It also provides rate limit information. For a one-parameter tool, this is complete and leaves no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.
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 parameter agentId is clearly described in the schema as the agent ID in Arc's ERC-8004 registry. The description does not add further parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expected given high schema coverage.
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 tool retrieves reputation data for an Arc agent: every ERC-8004 entry (who gave it, value, tags, revocation status), the registry's summary, and weekly uptime records. It clearly differentiates from siblings like arc_agent_status by focusing on reputation and includes a distinct data scope.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions free usage and a rate limit but does not state selection criteria relative to sibling tools such as arc_agent_status or arc_agent_search. The description implies a read-only data lookup but provides no contextual hints for choosing it.
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.