Skip to main content
Glama

get_reputation_scores

Compute PageRank trust scores from your directed trust graph to rank agents by trustworthiness and prioritize counterparties.

Instructions

Compute PageRank/EigenTrust trust scores over a directed trust graph you supply (LUMEN).

Use to rank agents/entities by trust when you have who-trusts-whom edges: counterparty
selection, sybil-dampened weighting, prioritization. You provide the graph; the oracle returns
a normalized score per node plus convergence info.

Returns:
    The standard envelope; `result` contains:
      - `scores`: array of `nodes` floats that sum to 1 (±1e-6) — node i's trust share.
      - `iterations`, `converged`: power-iteration convergence info.
    Cost ~$0.005 USDC (scales with graph size).

Example:
    get_reputation_scores(nodes=3, edges=[[0,1,1.0],[1,2,0.5],[2,0,0.5]], damping=0.85)

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.
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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses the return format (normalized scores summing to 1, convergence info), cost (~$0.005), and algorithmic detail (power iteration). It does not mention destructive effects (none expected) or auth/rate limits, but the information provided is sufficient for a computation tool.

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 and concise: opening purpose, usage guidelines, return specification, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource.

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 complexity of the tool (graph algorithm with multiple parameters and return values), the description is thorough. It covers usage, parameter constraints, return structure (even though output schema exists), cost, and includes a concrete example. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (nodes, edges, damping) including ranges, defaults, and semantics. The description adds an example and explains the return structure but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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 computes PageRank/EigenTrust trust scores over a supplied directed trust graph. It specifies the resource (trust scores) and action (compute), and the mention of LUMEN distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_trust or verify_reputation which likely handle precomputed or verified trust.

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 provides use cases: ranking agents/entities by trust for counterparty selection, sybil-dampened weighting, and prioritization. It implies when to use (when you have qui-trusts-whom edges) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the clear use-case guidance is strong.

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