erc8004__score_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions decay weighting and neutral default score, but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. It does say 'bridge to on-chain identity', implying a read operation, but not explicitly.

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

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

Two sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with key identity information. However, it could include brief parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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

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

Explains output (score and tier) and edge case (no feedback → 0.5). But 'tier' is not defined, and no output schema exists. For a simple scoring tool, it is mostly adequate but could be more precise.

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

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

Schema has 3 parameters (chain_id, token_id, bridge_did) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain these parameters at all, leaving their purpose and format completely unspecified.

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

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

Description clearly states it computes a decay-weighted trust score in [0,1] plus tier based on ERC-8004 feedback. It specifies 'bridge to ERC-8004 on-chain identity', distinguishing it from generic trust scoring tools like trust__score_agent.

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

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

Implied usage context: it operates on 'imported ERC-8004 feedback'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., trust__score_agent), nor does it mention prerequisites or use cases.

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