Skip to main content
Glama

submit_attestation

Submit a cryptographic peer rating to influence an agent's reputation score after an interaction. Ratings are immutable and permanently recorded.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses immutability, cryptographic signing, side effects (permanently modifies history and reputation), blocked self-attestation, requirement for prior registration, and potential error responses. This is comprehensive for a tool with no annotations.

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 clear sections: summary, importance caveat, side effects, prerequisites, blocked actions, bulleted argument list, and return value specification. It is concise yet complete, with no unnecessary words.

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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, presence of output schema (described), and 19 sibling tools, the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage constraints, side effects, prerequisites, error handling, and return format. It is fully informative for agent invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: for 'outcome' it repeats allowed values; for 'weight' clarifies confidence impact; for 'context' provides examples; and it documents return values and error cases not in the schema. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Submit a peer attestation (rating) for another agent after an interaction.' It uses a specific verb (submit) and resource (attestation), and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_reputation and get_attestations_received by explaining its role as the primary reputation-building mechanism.

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 explicitly says to use this after an interaction and warns against self-attestation. It implies the dispute system for contesting ratings but does not explicitly name alternative tools for specific cases (e.g., reading reputation). This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions for all alternatives.

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