Get a W3C Verifiable Credential for an agent. Returns the agent passport in W3C VC Data Model 2.0 format, interoperable with any VC verifier. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet_address | Yes | Agent wallet address (0x... or Solana base58) |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format and that the tool is 'Free', but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.
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, consisting of two substantive sentences plus 'Free.' It front-loads the primary action and return format without fluff. Each clause contributes useful information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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 covers the core purpose, return format, and interoperability. It does not mention any caveats, prerequisites, or error conditions, but given the simplicity and specificity of the tool, it is reasonably complete. The 'Free' note adds a minor extra context.
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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'wallet_address' with a clear description ('Agent wallet address (0x... or Solana base58)'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 a W3C Verifiable Credential') and the resource ('for an agent'), and specifies the return format as W3C VC Data Model 2.0. It adds the interoperability detail, which helps distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'get_passport', but it does not explicitly name or compare with 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_passport' or 'verify_stamp'. It only describes the action and output without contextual usage instructions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.
