Skip to main content
Glama

arp_rate

Submit a bilateral blind rating for an agent interaction. Rater identity is hashed for anonymity. Provide score (-1 to 1) and context (max 500 chars) to record reputation feedback.

Instructions

Submit a bilateral blind rating for another agent.

Ratings are stored with the rater's identity hashed (blind — only the SHA-256
of the rater ID is stored), so ratings cannot be attributed to specific raters
without knowing the original ID.

Args:
    rater: ID of the agent submitting the rating (hashed before storage)
    ratee: ID of the agent being rated
    score: Rating score from -1.0 (worst) to 1.0 (best)
    context: Brief description of the interaction being rated (max 500 chars)

Returns:
    JSON confirmation with timestamp and rater hash

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
raterYes
rateeYes
scoreYes
contextYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by explaining that rater IDs are hashed for blind storage. However, it omits other behavioral details like mutability, rate limits, or whether duplicate ratings are allowed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with sections for Args and Returns, and front-loads the core purpose. It is slightly verbose in explaining the hashing, but each sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema mentioned, the description provides sufficient context for usage. It covers inputs, the hashing behavior, and the return format.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description explains each parameter beyond the input schema's minimal titles: rater is hashed, score range (-1.0 to 1.0), context max length (500 chars). Since schema coverage is 0%, this significantly compensates.

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's purpose: 'Submit a bilateral blind rating for another agent.' It uses a specific verb and resource ('submit rating'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like arp_check by focusing on rating submission.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to submit a rating versus check existing ratings. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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/alexfleetcommander/agent-trust-stack-mcp'

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