Skip to main content
Glama

submit_attestation

Rate another agent's performance after an interaction. Submit a cryptographically signed attestation to build reputation on the network.

Instructions

Submit a peer attestation (rating) for another agent after an interaction.

Records your evaluation of another agent's performance. This is the
primary mechanism for building reputation on the network.

IMPORTANT: Attestations are cryptographically signed and immutable —
they cannot be modified or deleted after submission. Use the dispute
system to contest unfair ratings received.

Side effects: permanently modifies the target agent's attestation
history and may change their computed reputation score.

Requires a registered agent identity (call register_agent first).
Self-attestation (rating yourself) is blocked.

Args:
    to_did: DID of the agent being rated (did:key:z6Mk...).
    outcome: Must be "positive", "negative", or "neutral".
    weight: Confidence (0.0-1.0). Default 0.9.
    context: Interaction type for category-specific scoring. Empty for general.

Returns:
    JSON with attestation ID, signature confirmation, and effective weight.
    Returns {"error": "Rate limited"} if limits exceeded.
    Returns {"error": "..."} on invalid input or network errors.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
to_didYesDID of the agent being rated. Format: did:key:z6Mk... Cannot be your own DID
outcomeNoRating: 'positive' (performed well), 'negative' (performed poorly), or 'neutral' (no strong signal)positive
weightNoConfidence in this rating, 0.0-1.0. Higher = more impact on target's score. Default: 0.9
contextNoInteraction type. Examples: code_review, task_completion, data_accuracy. Empty for general

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it states attestations are cryptographically signed and immutable, side effects (modifies history and reputation), error cases (rate limited, invalid input), and the self-attestation block. This provides comprehensive transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear summary, important notes, and separate sections for arguments and returns. It is concise yet thorough, with no redundant sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has four parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema (described in returns), and read-only siblings, the description covers all necessary context: prerequisites, side effects, error handling, and return format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description's Args section largely mirrors the schema descriptions. It does not add significant new meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool submits a peer attestation for another agent after an interaction. It distinguishes from sibling tools (all read-only) by emphasizing it is the primary mechanism for building reputation and recording evaluations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use it (after an interaction) and notes prerequisites (registered agent identity) and restrictions (no self-attestation). It implies alternatives like the dispute system for contesting unfair ratings, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, which are all read-oriented and thus clearly different.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/agentveil-protocol/avp-sdk'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server