ARGENTUM

Tool Scores

• get_karmaB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly confirm safety, idempotency, or what occurs if the entity_id doesn't exist. It does disclose the three data categories returned (karma, actions, attestations).

  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 extremely concise with no redundant text. The two-sentence structure efficiently separates the tool's purpose from the single parameter's semantics. However, embedding the parameter description directly in the main text block is slightly less structured than ideal.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately avoids detailing return values. However, it fails to define what constitutes an 'entity' in this system or explain the relationship between karma, actions, and attestations, leaving contextual gaps for a tool dealing with reputation/verification concepts.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage (entity_id lacks a description field). The text compensates by stating 'entity_id: the entity to look up', which adds basic semantic meaning beyond the schema's title and type, though it lacks format specifications, examples, or validation rules.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description states specific actions ('Check') and resources ('karma', 'verified actions', 'attestations given'), clearly identifying what data is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_action_detail' which might also retrieve action information.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_action_detail' or 'get_leaderboard', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring a valid entity_id format.

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

• get_leaderboardB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether results are cached or real-time, or any rate limiting. It mentions 'reputation' as the ranking criteria but lacks safety or operational context.

  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 consists of two efficient components: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Every word earns its place; the purpose is front-loaded and there is no redundant or boilerplate text.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool has only one simple parameter and an output schema exists (removing the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should ideally disclose the read-only nature of the operation or pagination behavior to be fully complete.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage (only 'title' and 'type' fields). The description compensates effectively by explaining that 'top' controls 'how many to show' and explicitly stating the default value of 10, providing necessary semantic meaning missing from the structured schema.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool retrieves a 'karma leaderboard' and specifies it ranks 'top entities by reputation,' providing a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_karma' by focusing on the ranked list aspect, though it doesn't explicitly contrast the two.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_karma' (which likely retrieves specific entity scores) or 'submit_action' (which likely affects karma). There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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

• get_action_detailB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses that attestations are included in the response, which is valuable behavioral context. However, lacks mention of error handling (e.g., invalid action_id), safety guarantees, or 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?

  Extremely concise with two efficient fragments: purpose statement front-loaded, followed by parameter explanation. No redundant or wasted text; every word earns its place given the schema lacks descriptions.

  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?

  Adequate for a single-parameter read operation with output schema available. The inclusion of 'attestations' signals key return data. Missing explicit read-only declaration, but tool name and verb imply safety sufficiently for this complexity level.

  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 has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by stating 'action_id: the action to look up', providing minimal but necessary semantic meaning. Does not specify ID format, constraints, or examples, leaving clear gaps.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  Clear verb 'Get' with specific resource 'details of a specific action'. Mentioning 'attestations' distinguishes this from generic get tools and relates to sibling attest_action, though explicit differentiation from get_karma/get_leaderboard is absent.

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Does not clarify whether to use this versus submit_action (create) or attest_action (create attestation), or when to prefer get_karma/leaderboard for aggregate views.

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

• attest_actionA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'Your karma weight counts toward verification,' providing key behavioral context about the karma system, but omits side effects (karma consumption, reversibility), auth requirements, or rate limits.

  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 efficiently structured with a clear prose explanation followed by parameter documentation. No sentences are wasted, though the parameter list format is slightly informal.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description adequately documents the parameters and basic purpose. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks sufficient behavioral depth (what happens to the attested action, karma implications) despite having an output schema.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It successfully documents all 4 parameters (action_id, attester_id, attester_name, note) with clear semantic meanings, though it lacks format constraints or validation rules.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly defines the action as attesting/verifying 'someone else's action' and mentions the karma weight mechanism, distinguishing it from submit_action (which creates actions) and the read-only siblings (get_* tools).

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The phrase 'someone else's action' implicitly signals this is for verifying others' work rather than submitting your own, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to submit_action. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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

• submit_actionA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'community verification' indicating the action enters a pending state, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, whether submissions can be edited/deleted, or what triggers the verification process.

  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 the purpose statement front-loaded, followed by the parameter documentation. Given the necessity of documenting six parameters due to schema deficiencies, the information density is appropriate, though the inline list format slightly reduces scannability compared to structured schema descriptions.

  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?

  Considering the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description successfully documents all input parameters. Since an output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details. It could be improved by briefly explaining what ARGENTUM represents or the consequences of submission, but it is functionally complete.

  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?

  The schema has 0% description coverage (only titles), but the description comprehensively compensates by documenting all 6 parameters inline with semantic meaning: entity_id includes examples (GitHub username), entity_type specifies allowed values ('human' or 'agent'), action_type lists the complete enum (HELP | BUILD | etc.), and proof provides format examples (URL to GitHub PR).

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the specific verb (submit) and resource (action to ARGENTUM) with scope (for community verification). It implicitly distinguishes from read-only siblings like get_karma and get_leaderboard, though it does not explicitly contrast with attest_action which could confuse users about the verification workflow.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, particularly attest_action which likely participates in the same workflow. There are no prerequisites mentioned, no explanation of the relationship between submitting and attesting, and no warnings about duplicate submissions or validation requirements.

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