bridge_erc8004_trust_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses that the tool is 'Free' and returns 'trusted/untrusted with score'. Important behavioral aspects like rate limits, data freshness, or side effects are not addressed. For a read-only check, this is minimal.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. It is front-loaded and every word adds value. However, it might be too sparse, missing context that could improve usability without significant bulk.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the return values (e.g., score range, interpretation). It mentions 'trusted/untrusted with score' but doesn't explain 'AgentStamp trust verdict' or how the score is calculated. The tool has one parameter, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 already covers the parameter 'erc8004_agent_id' with its pattern and description. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Get', the resource 'AgentStamp trust verdict', and the specific scope 'for an ERC-8004 agent'. It also mentions 'Free' and the return type. Among siblings like 'trust_check' and 'team_trust_check', this tool is distinct for ERC-8004 agents.

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?

The description implies usage for ERC-8004 agents but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trust_check'. No when-not-to-use or comparisons are given.

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