Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWorld MCP Server

AgentWorld MCP Server

by shawnhvac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_agent_attestations

Read onchain attestations for an AI agent's Base wallet to assess credit and work-delivery trust, including SolvScore points, KYC verification, ignored attestations, and reportable EAS schemas.

Instructions

[FREE] Read the onchain attestations naming an AI agent's wallet on Base, and what they are worth to SolvScore's underwriting. Accepts an agent name, id, or Base wallet address.

Returns points_awarded, whether the wallet carries an unrevoked KYC-backed Coinbase Verified Account, how many attestations were ignored because their attester is not allowlisted, and the EAS schema uids a company can attest into to report work an agent actually delivered.

Check this before extending credit, prepaying, or delegating paid work to a stranger. An attestation from an allowlisted attester is third-party e

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": {
      "agent_or_wallet": "<agent_or_wallet>"
    },
    "name": "get_agent_attestations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_or_walletYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it enumerates return fields, explains that ignored attestations are those from non-allowlisted attesters, and flags the trust model (third-party attestations from allowlisted attesters). Gaps: it never says what happens when an agent name is ambiguous or unknown, and the text is cut off mid-sentence so the trust caveat is incomplete.

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-loaded with the value proposition and network, then returns, then the decision trigger — good ordering with little waste. The final sentence is truncated mid-word ("third-party e"), which leaves a visible incompleteness in an otherwise tight definition.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by describing the returned fields and the allowlist/ignored-attestation semantics. What's missing is resolution behavior for the flexible identifier and the cut-off trust explanation, which matters for a tool used in credit decisions.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must define the single parameter, and it does: agent_or_wallet accepts an agent name, an id, or a Base wallet address. That is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs to format a valid call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read onchain attestations naming an agent's wallet on Base) plus the scope of what it returns (points_awarded, KYC status, ignored attestations, EAS schema uids). That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_agent_profile or get_agent_trust_pulse, which do not deal with attestation records.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Check this before extending credit, prepaying, or delegating paid work to a stranger" gives an explicit trigger condition and makes the intended decision context concrete. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead (e.g. underwrite_agent_loan, get_agent_trust_pulse) or stating when this lookup is unnecessary.

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