Checks whether an AI agent / wallet has active insurance coverage on InsureLink, including tier, caps, expiry, and covered events. Free. Standard HTTPS + JSON via the agent-assurance REST module.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent / wallet address (0x...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context by stating 'Free' and 'Standard HTTPS + JSON via the agent-assurance REST module', but it does not explicitly disclose whether it's a read-only operation, error behavior, or response structure, leaving some ambiguity.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It consists of one main sentence plus a brief factual note about cost and protocol, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a simple one-parameter check with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is checked (coverage, tier, caps, expiry, events) and access details. It falls slightly short by not describing the return format or handling of uninsured agents, but remains sufficient for a basic query tool.
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 schema already provides full coverage of the single parameter (agent_id with description 'Agent / wallet address (0x...)'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Checks') and clearly identifies the resource (insurance coverage on InsureLink), listing the key attributes covered (tier, caps, expiry, covered events). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like claim_breach_credit or insurelink_charge.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agent_claim_history or get_agent_risk_score. It only mentions cost and protocol ('Free', 'Standard HTTPS + JSON'), but no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.
Many tools have similar purposes, such as the three simulation tools (simulate_action, simulate_paid_action, simulate_paid_action_batch) and the two payment wrappers (pay_then_call, insurelink_charge). While descriptions clarify distinctions, an agent may struggle to choose correctly without careful reading.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case with a consistent verb_noun or verb_noun_noun pattern (e.g., get_reputation, subscribe_attestation_freshness). No mixing of conventions or styles.
With 28 tools, the surface is larger than typical. While each tool serves a specific function, many could be consolidated (e.g., simulation tools, payment wrappers) to reduce cognitive load. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'.
Core operations for reputation, attestation, SLA lifecycle, and payments are present. However, gaps exist: no tool to list individual SLAs or update an SLA beyond renewal/reset, and no dispute or pricing query tool. The set covers the domain but has notable missing operations.