Verify a Nostr pubkey's anti-Sybil Trust Score (0-100) and Web-of-Trust distance to assess its trustworthiness.
Verify anti-Sybil Trust Score (0-100) and Web-of-Trust distance for a Nostr pubkey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pubkey | Yes | Target Nostr public key in 64-char hex or npub format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Verify' implies a read-only operation and the description states what is returned (score 0-100 and WoT distance), but it does not mention failure modes, data sources, or whether any network/trust-service lookup is involved.
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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The key action and target are front-loaded, and the output range is included efficiently.
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?
For a one-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the input and the returned values. It could add detail about what 'Web-of-Trust distance' means or how to interpret the score, but the core information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.
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 100%, and the description does not meaningfully add beyond the schema: both identify the pubkey as the target. The description reiterates the purpose but provides no extra syntax, formatting, or edge-case behavior for the parameter.
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 names a specific action ('Verify'), a specific resource ('anti-Sybil Trust Score and Web-of-Trust distance'), and a specific target ('Nostr pubkey'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are mostly payment/identity/telemetry operations.
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 makes the tool's context clear: it is for verifying anti-Sybil trust information about a Nostr pubkey. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools overlap with this purpose, so the intended use is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.