Check an agent's identity, bond state (pending, active, slashed), trust badges, receipt count, and open disputes to verify reputation and settlement standing.
Show this agent's id, bond status (pending/active/slashed), trust badges, receipt count and open disputes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the fields returned and that bond status has three discrete values (pending/active/slashed), which implies a read-only snapshot, but it never states that it is non-mutating, what auth is required, or when the snapshot is taken.
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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the payload enumerated compactly. Every clause earns its place, including the parenthetical enum of statuses.
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 compensates by listing exactly what comes back, and there are no parameters to document. It is close to complete for a zero-arg status tool, though it omits read-only/auth context an agent might want before calling.
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 per the rules the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs and nothing is misleading.
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 ('Show') plus the resource and an explicit enumeration of returned fields (id, bond status, trust badges, receipt count, open disputes). That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like register_agent or escrow_status, though it never names an alternative directly.
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 when-to-use, no prerequisites, no mention of how it differs from escrow_status or find_agents. The mention of 'slashed' and 'open disputes' hints at a health-check use case, but that is inference, not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.