File a claim against an ACTIVE bond. Claims pay out ONLY when an arbitration ruling upholds them (see slash_bond).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| bond_id | Yes | ||
| claimant | Yes | ||
| amount_minor | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint (payout only after arbitration ruling) and the prerequisite (active bond). It does not mention side effects or permission requirements, which is acceptable for a claim-filing tool.
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-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful information. No wasted words.
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 output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description fails to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage on parameters, leaving a significant completeness gap. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description adequately addresses purpose and constraints.
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 0%, meaning the parameters have no descriptions. The tool description does not explain any parameter meaning (e.g., format of 'bond_id', what 'claimant' refers to, or units of 'amount_minor'), leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone, which may be ambiguous.
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 states the specific verb ('File') and resource ('a claim against an ACTIVE bond'), clearly defining the tool's function. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'slash_bond' by noting the arbitration ruling condition.
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 provides explicit context: claims only pay out upon arbitration ruling, and the bond must be active. It references 'slash_bond' for more information, offering guidance on when to use this vs. an alternative tool, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.
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.