Full trust score breakdown for an agent address. Aggregates 4 on-chain sources: PayCrow escrow history, ERC-8004 agent identity, Moltbook social karma, and Base chain activity. Returns 0-100 score with per-source details. For a quick go/no-go decision, use trust_gate instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Ethereum address of the agent to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / address / descriptionPrevious value: -"Ethereum address to check"New value: +"Ethereum address of the agent to look up"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data sources (4 on-chain sources) and the return format (0-100 score with per-source details), which is strong for a read-only query. It does not mention potential caveats like rate limits, but given the simplicity of the operation, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key details, and ends with an explicit alternative. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
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?
For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description provides essential information: what it returns (score and per-source details) and how it differs from trust_gate. It could mention error behavior or exact response structure, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 has one parameter with full coverage (100% description). The description adds 'agent address' but the schema already provides the same meaning. Thus the description adds no significant value beyond the schema, so baseline 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's purpose: 'Full trust score breakdown for an agent address' with a specific verb 'breakdown' and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool trust_gate by noting when to use each.
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?
It explicitly provides an alternative for a different use case: 'For a quick go/no-go decision, use trust_gate instead.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool vs. the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between trust_gate, trust_onchain_quick, and trust_score_query, which all relate to checking agent trustworthiness. While each has a slightly different focus (quick check vs. full breakdown vs. decision recommendation), an agent might struggle to choose the right one in some scenarios. The escrow and payment tools are clearly differentiated.
The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., escrow_create, escrow_release, rate_service), but there are deviations like safe_pay (adjective_verb) and x402_protected_call (alphanumeric prefix). These outliers break the pattern slightly, though the majority of tools follow a clear convention.
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose of handling escrow, payments, and trust management. Each tool appears to serve a specific function in the workflow, from creating escrows to checking trust scores, without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the escrow and payment domain, including creation, dispute, release, status checks, rating, and trust assessment. It supports both automated (safe_pay) and manual (x402_protected_call) workflows, with no obvious gaps in the lifecycle or functionality needed for secure transactions.