trust_compare
Compare trust scores of up to 5 wallets side-by-side. See who leads, the score gap, and which agents are unregistered.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallets | Yes | Array of 2-5 wallet addresses to compare |
agentstamp
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (who leads, gap, unregistered agents), but does not mention error handling, permission requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. For a simple comparison tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it compares, the limit, and key output details. It lacks edge-case specifics (e.g., invalid addresses) but is sufficient for this straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'wallets' parameter is thoroughly described with min/max and purpose). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('trust scores of up to 5 wallets side-by-side'). It also mentions key outputs (who leads, score gap, unregistered agents), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like trust_check that likely handle single-wallet checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when comparing multiple wallets) and specifies the limit of 5 wallets. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear for a comparison scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
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 Consistency3/5
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.
Tool Count4/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.