Execute an arbitration ruling against a claim. Requires the ruling's case id + content hash from agent-arbitration — no ruling, no slash; a given ruling pays at most once. Payout caps at the bond's available balance (over-claims exhaust the bond).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upheld | No | ||
| bond_id | Yes | ||
| claim_id | Yes | ||
| ruling_hash | Yes | ||
| ruling_case_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that payout caps at bond balance, over-claims exhaust the bond, and rulings are single-use. These are key side effects, though it could mention if the tool is destructive.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Each sentence provides critical context without being verbose.
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 complexity of arbitration and bonds, the description covers the flow and constraints adequately. It has an output schema (not shown), so return values are not needed. Could mention bond must be active, but not essential.
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 description must compensate. It explains ruling_case_id and ruling_hash as 'ruling's case id + content hash', but does not clarify bond_id, claim_id, or upheld. Only 2 of 5 parameters are meaningfully described.
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 verb 'Execute' and the resource 'arbitration ruling against a claim', distinguishing it from sibling tools like activate_bond or file_claim. It specifies the required inputs (bond_id, claim_id, ruling_case_id, ruling_hash) and constraints.
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 explains when to use: after an arbitration ruling, requiring case id and content hash. It also states exclusions ('no ruling, no slash') and idempotency ('a given ruling pays at most once'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools.
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.