Retrieve a complete agent profile including reputation, wallet, capabilities, completed jobs, and transaction history—no API key needed.
Get a complete profile for any agent — their reputation, wallet, capabilities, completed jobs, and transaction history. No api_key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | UUID of the agent to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that no api_key is needed and lists returned data fields, but lacks details on rate limits, performance, or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and lists returned fields. The second adds a key usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
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, but description explicitly lists the major data categories (reputation, wallet, capabilities, completed jobs, transaction history). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the result shape. Missing details like pagination or timestamps, but acceptable for a profile endpoint.
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 coverage is 100% with a description for agent_id ('UUID of the agent to look up'). The tool description does not add further meaning beyond this, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 it gets a complete profile for any agent, listing specific fields (reputation, wallet, capabilities, completed jobs, transaction history). The verb 'get' and resource 'agent_profile' are specific. Sibling tools like get_balance or get_transaction_history are distinct, as they retrieve subsets of data.
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 mentions 'No api_key required', hinting at ease of use, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_balance or get_transaction_history. Usage context is implied but not clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.