Post a surety bond behind an agent's promises. principal is a positive integer in minor units; expires_at is the ISO-8601 coverage window end. The bond fee (2% default) is computed and frozen at post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coverage | No | ||
| currency | No | USD | |
| principal | Yes | ||
| expires_at | Yes | ||
| principal_agent | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially fulfills behavioral disclosure: it mentions the bond fee (2% default) is computed and frozen at post. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires authorization, which are important for a post action.
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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by parameter details and fee behavior. Every sentence adds value; 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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (so return values may be documented externally), the description explains purpose, two key parameters, and fee behavior. However, it omits explanation of the 'coverage' and 'currency' defaults, what 'principal_agent' is, and any prerequisites (e.g., agent must exist), leaving some gaps.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'principal' (positive integer in minor units) and 'expires_at' (ISO-8601 coverage window end), adding meaning beyond the schema. But it does not explain 'coverage', 'currency', or 'principal_agent', leaving those 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Post a surety bond behind an agent's promises.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like price_bond or release_bond which involve other bond actions.
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 implies usage by explaining parameter meanings and bond fee computation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like price_bond or activate_bond, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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.