Search the agent directory by query or category to find AI agents with reputation scores.
Search the AgentStamp agent directory by query and/or category. Returns agents with reputation scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search term to match against agent names, descriptions, and capabilities | |
| category | No | Filter by category: data, trading, research, creative, infrastructure, other | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.2Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max results (default 10, max 100)"New value: +"Max results (1-100)"Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include reputation scores, but it does not clarify behavior when called with no query or category (schema allows it), nor does it mention rate limits, authentication, or return structure. This ambiguity is a significant transparency gap.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Search'), specifies the resource, and states the outcome. Every word contributes meaning with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
The tool is a simple search with optional filters, and the description covers the core purpose and result. However, it lacks details on behavior with no parameters, the exact return shape, and differentiation from sibling tools. The absence of an output schema increases the need for more descriptive completeness.
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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, category) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 tool searches the AgentStamp agent directory by query and/or category, and specifies the return value (agents with reputation scores). It distinguishes from siblings like get_agent (specific agent) and browse_agents (browsing without search) through the explicit search/filter scope, though it does not name alternatives.
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 when to use it: when searching with a query and/or category. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as browse_agents for unfiltered browsing, so usage context is implied but not fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.