Skip to main content
Glama
synpareia

Synpareia Trust Toolkit

Official

evaluate_agent

Assess a counterparty's trustworthiness across multiple tiers using namespace and identifier. Returns structured evidence for each tier to inform agent decision-making.

Instructions

Evaluate a counterparty across every configured tier.

Pass namespace + id to route explicitly. namespace is the platform / context ("synpareia", "moltbook", "slack", "discord", "email", ...); id is the identifier within that namespace (a DID, handle, username, or local record id).

id may also be passed as namespace_id — that is the field name remember_counterparty emits, so a Tier-1 record pipes straight into this call without renaming (round-trip audit, task #40).

The legacy identifier=... form still works for one release and emits a deprecation flag on the response. It will be removed in v0.5.

Returns {tier1, tier2, tier3, tier4_available, providers_queried, providers_skipped, summary}. Every tier is a list; empty lists mean "no evidence at this tier" (never an error). An agent reads the structured result and decides how to weight each tier.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
namespaceNo
identifierNo
namespace_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that evaluation occurs across all configured tiers, returns structured result with empty lists meaning no evidence, and legacy identifier emits deprecation flag. Does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-evaluate tool this is adequate.

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?

Four focused paragraphs with no filler. First sentence states purpose, then routing details, then legacy note, then return structure. Every sentence adds value. Efficient and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-tier, multiple input methods, deprecation), description covers most aspects. Explains return structure and meaning of empty lists. Could mention default behavior when no required parameters are provided, but overall 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: namespace (platform/context), id (identifier within namespace), identifier (legacy form), namespace_id (from remember_counterparty). Provides concrete examples and purpose, far exceeding bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Evaluate a counterparty across every configured tier.' Verb 'evaluate' and resource 'counterparty across tiers' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings by discussing routing details and legacy form, making purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides detailed guidance on when to use, including the two distinct ways to specify the counterparty (namespace+id or namespace_id). Mentions legacy identifier still works but will be deprecated. Lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, but context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/synpareia/trust-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server