erc8004__score_agent

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

Describes the scoring algorithm (decay-weighted, prior 0.5) and edge case (no feedback). No annotations exist, so the description fills the gap. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, which is a minor omission.

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, front-loaded with output and logic, no fluff. However, it could include parameter explanations 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?

Despite lacking output schema and parameter descriptions, the description gives enough for basic understanding. However, the absence of parameter meaning makes it incomplete for practical invocation.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what chain_id, token_id, or bridge_did represent. This is a critical gap for agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The description clearly states the tool computes a decay-weighted trust score in [0,1] plus tier, using ERC-8004 feedback, with a neutral prior of 0.5. The verb 'score' and resource 'agent' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like import_feedback or bind_identity.

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?

Implies use after importing feedback via erc8004__import_feedback, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., trust__score_agent) or when not to use. No exclusions provided.

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