Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vet402

vet402

by kzmttkc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

check_agent_trust

Verify an ERC-8004 agent's trust score on Base before paying it; returns ALLOW_PAY or REFUSE plus safe_to_pay, and treats errors as refusal.

Instructions

ERC-8004 agent trust check on Base. Decide on decision (ALLOW_PAY | REFUSE) and safe_to_pay (boolean); pay only on ALLOW_PAY. An error result is REFUSE too — no answer is not an ALLOW. measurement carries the full score body as evidence, not as the decision.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agentId": "<agentId>"
    },
    "name": "check_agent_trust"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletNoOptional wallet to verify against agentWallet metadata
agentIdYesERC-8004 agent ID (tokenId)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the critical trait: fail-closed semantics (an error is REFUSE, not an ALLOW). It also clarifies the relationship between the decision enum, the safe_to_pay boolean, and the measurement evidence field, which is behavior beyond a bare 'check'. It omits operational traits such as latency, caching, or cost of the lookup.

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?

Front-loads the identity and environment ('ERC-8004 agent trust check on Base'), then the decision rule, then the evidence caveat — a sensible order with no filler. Minor awkwardness ('Decide on decision') costs a point but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does: decision, safe_to_pay, and measurement with its evidentiary role. Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this. What 'full score body' in measurement actually contains remains undefined.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both agentId (tokenId) and the optional wallet verification parameter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how wallet interacts with agentWallet metadata, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: an ERC-8004 agent trust check on Base. An agent knows exactly what this returns (a trust decision for a given agent ID). It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like check_wallet_trust or check_payee_trust, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides a clear decision rule — pay only on ALLOW_PAY, and treat errors as REFUSE — which is real usage guidance for downstream behavior. However, it gives no guidance on when to pick this tool over check_wallet_trust, check_payee_trust, or pay_if_trusted, so selection among siblings is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools