Get a signed cross-protocol agent passport. Contains identity, stamp, reputation, A2A card, and MCP metadata — all Ed25519-signed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet_address | Yes | Ethereum wallet address (0x...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by stating the passport is 'Ed25519-signed' and lists its contents, which is useful. However, it does not cover error behavior (e.g., missing passport), response format, or any authentication requirements, leaving notable gaps.
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 compact and front-loaded: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second efficiently enumerates the payload contents and signing property.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the return includes and the signing trait. It could be more complete by explicitly noting this is the composite passport fetch and directing to siblings for individual data (e.g., reputation-only use get_agent_reputation), but overall it is sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single wallet_address parameter fully documented as 'Ethereum wallet address (0x...)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies per the rubric.
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 returns a 'signed cross-protocol agent passport' and enumerates its contents (identity, stamp, reputation, A2A card, MCP metadata). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_reputation or verify_stamp, which focus on individual components.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cases where a caller should use get_agent_reputation or verify_stamp instead, nor does it describe prerequisites like requiring an existing passport for the wallet.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose, such as bridge_erc8004_lookup and bridge_erc8004_trust_check, trust_check, get_agent, and get_agent_reputation all returning trust or reputation data. Descriptions help clarify the distinctions, but the similarities could lead an agent to select the wrong tool.
Naming uses a mix of conventions: verb-noun (get_agent, search_agents), noun-first (compliance_report, dns_discovery), and prefix-based groupings (trust_*, bridge_*). While snake_case is consistent, the inconsistent verb/noun ordering and synonyms (lookup, check, verify) make it less predictable.
With 19 tools, the set is slightly heavy but still justified by the platform's broad feature set covering trust checks, reputation, teams, wishes, compliance, and credentials. Some tools could be merged (e.g., bridge_erc8004_lookup and bridge_erc8004_trust_check), but the count is not excessive for the apparent scope.
The tool surface focuses heavily on reading and checking trust data, but lacks obvious lifecycle operations such as updating or deleting agents, creating wishes, or managing endorsements. The presence of create_team without corresponding team management (update/delete) leaves a notable gap.
