Skip to main content
Glama

get_agent_trust

Retrieve the trust score, rank, and percentile of a single agent in a directed trust graph. Use when you need one counterparty's standing instead of full reputation scores.

Instructions

Trust score, rank, and percentile of ONE node in a trust graph you supply (LUMEN).

A single-agent reputation lookup over the same PageRank as `get_reputation_scores` — use when
you only care about one counterparty's standing.

Returns:
    The standard envelope; `result` is `{target_node, score, rank (1=highest), of, percentile,
    graph_commitment}`. Cost ~$0.003 USDC.

Example:
    get_agent_trust(nodes=3, edges=[[0,1,1.0],[1,2,0.5],[2,0,0.5]], target_node=1)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodesYesNumber of nodes in the directed trust graph, 1..100000. Node indices in `edges` must be in [0, nodes).
edgesYesDirected, weighted trust edges as `[from_index, to_index, weight]`. An edge i→j with weight w means node i confers w trust on node j. Weights need not be normalized.
target_nodeYesIndex of the node whose trust score/rank/percentile to return (0-based, in [0, nodes)).
dampingNoPageRank damping factor in [0,1] (default 0.85). Lower = more weight on the uniform prior, dampening graph manipulation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Describes output format, cost, and uses PageRank algorithm. No annotations exist, so description carries burden; it does well but could mention computational limits or lack of side effects.

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?

Very concise with clear sections: purpose, usage, returns, cost, example. 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 output schema exists and 4 parameters, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how to use, what it returns, and an illustrative example.

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% so baseline 3. Description adds example and explains weight meaning, but doesn't surpass what schema already provides.

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 it returns trust score, rank, and percentile for one node, and distinguishes it from the sibling get_reputation_scores by noting it's for a single agent.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'use when you only care about one counterparty's standing', providing clear selection criteria versus 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/alexar76/aimarket-oracle-gateway'

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