Check an ERC-8004 agent's payment reliability score and dispute rate on Ink to assess onchain commerce reputation before paying invoices.
Payment reliability score (0-100) and dispute rate (basis points) for an ERC-8004 agentId, from the Four02ReputationRegistry on Ink. Value-weighted with 365-day linear decay. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | Yes | ERC-8004 agent ID (decimal string) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it declares 'Read-only' (safety profile), discloses the scoring methodology ('value-weighted with 365-day linear decay'), states output units/scales, and identifies the registry and chain. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about data freshness, caching, or failure modes for unknown agentIds.
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?
Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the returned values and then the source and computation method. Every clause adds information; nothing is padding.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return values, and it does: the score range (0-100) and dispute rate unit (basis points). The missing annotation safety profile is compensated by the explicit 'Read-only' note. It is essentially complete for a single-parameter read tool, with only edge-case behavior (unknown agentId, staleness) unaddressed.
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 is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('ERC-8004 agent ID (decimal string)'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'ERC-8004 agentId' restates rather than extends 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?
Names the specific outputs (payment reliability score 0-100 and dispute rate in basis points) and the exact source (Four02ReputationRegistry for an ERC-8004 agentId on Ink), so an agent knows precisely what it gets back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like four02_reputation_summary or four02_reputation_history, so it stops short of a 5.
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 a lookup use case ('for an ERC-8004 agentId') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never references the sibling reputation tools. An agent must infer on its own whether this or four02_reputation_summary is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.