MolTrust

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

No annotations provided, but description effectively discloses return payload structure (tier, score, grade, dates, SVG URL) beyond just 'badge status'.

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?

Extremely concise with zero redundancy; front-loaded purpose statement followed by structured Args section where every sentence 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?

Adequately complete for a single-parameter read-only tool; preemptively describes return values (though output schema exists per signals) ensuring agent understands payload without external reference.

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?

Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by defining 'did' as 'The DID of the agent to check' in the Args section, clarifying the parameter's purpose.

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?

Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Verified by MolTrust badge status') with specific return value enumeration, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tool 'mt_check_badge'.

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 guidance on when to use this versus 'mt_check_badge' or other trust verification tools; no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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