Mark a POSTED bond ACTIVE (idempotent). funding_ref links the payment rail transaction that funded the stake.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bond_id | Yes | ||
| funding_ref | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes idempotency, a key behavioral trait, and explains the funding_ref parameter's role. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other important behaviors such as side effects, authorization requirements, or error scenarios. More detail would improve transparency.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and uses no superfluous words. Every sentence provides value, making it highly efficient for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description is not required to explain return values. However, it omits critical context such as the bond's state machine, preconditions (e.g., bond must be posted), and potential errors. The description is functional but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.
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 description adds meaning to funding_ref ('links the payment rail transaction'), compensating for the 0% schema coverage. However, bond_id remains unexplained beyond its presence in the schema. While partial, the added context helps but not fully.
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 'Mark a POSTED bond ACTIVE', specifying the verb and the resource. The mention of 'POSTED' distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_bond or release_bond, establishing its specific role in the bond lifecycle.
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?
Usage context is implied by describing the target state ('POSTED bond'), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., post_bond, release_bond). No prerequisites or exclusions are provided, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action or query in the surety bond lifecycle. The descriptions clearly differentiate between posting, pricing, activating, claiming, slashing, releasing, auditing, and querying status. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., post_bond, activate_bond, file_claim). The only slight deviation is bond_status, which is still clear and fits the query pattern. Overall naming is predictable and uniform.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a surety bond system. Each tool covers a necessary operation without unnecessary duplication. The count feels neither sparse nor overwhelming for the domain.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle from posting to release and audit. Notable gaps include the absence of a cancellation or withdrawal tool before activation, and no explicit dispute resolution without arbitration. However, these are minor and the core workflow is complete.