attest_agent

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry behavioral info. It mentions permanence and cost, but does not disclose failure modes, reversibility, return value, or what happens to duplicate attestations. Could be more detailed.

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 sentences with no fluff. Front-loads purpose and adds cost/usage context. Could benefit from a slightly more structured format, but overall 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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, cost, and when to use. Missing details on failure behavior, return information, and edge cases, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the 'address' parameter beyond implying the agent's address. An agent would benefit from knowing that the address must be an Ethereum address (implied by regex) and what it represents.

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 action: 'Score an AI agent and write an on-chain EAS attestation recording the trust score permanently.' It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_score (read) and verify_agent (check), as it creates a permanent record.

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?

Provides explicit cost and authorization requirements ('Costs $5 via x402 or requires an operator key') and a clear use case ('Use when you need a verifiable, immutable trust record for an agent'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sufficient.

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