Verifies the on-chain SLA agreement state for tokenId and, if active and the caller is a party, calls microResetInsurance to mitigate the breach. Use after a drift or expiry alert. Requires x402 payment ($0.005). Returns payment instructions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Optional human-readable breach reason for audit | |
| tokenId | Yes | SLA token ID to verify and mitigate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions the payment requirement ($0.005) and returns payment instructions, and it implies a conditional mutation. However, it doesn't clarify what happens if the SLA is inactive or the caller is not a party, nor how the payment flow sequences with the actual mitigation call.
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 the primary action, and each sentence adds value. The first sentence is dense but packs the core behavior; the second gives usage and payment info. No fluff, but slightly longer than necessary.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It says 'Returns payment instructions,' but that's minimal. It doesn't elaborate on error cases, the outcome when conditions are not met, or what triggers the actual on-chain call. For a tool involving payment, more context would be needed.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'tokenId' and 'reason' but the schema already provides the same semantic detail. No additional parameter context is given.
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 what the tool does: verifies SLA agreement state and conditionally calls microResetInsurance. The verb 'verifies' and 'calls' are specific, and the resource (tokenId) is identified. It distinguishes itself from siblings like micro_reset by adding the verification step.
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 explicitly says 'Use after a drift or expiry alert,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, especially since a sibling tool 'micro_reset' could be a direct alternative if no verification is needed.
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.