Returns recent insurance claim history for an AI agent / wallet on InsureLink, including filed, approved, partial, and denied claims. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max claims to return. Default 25. | |
| agent_id | Yes | Agent / wallet address (0x...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the tool is 'Free' and enumerates the claim statuses included, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not specify time window, pagination, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior beyond the verb 'returns,' 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, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the claim statuses and cost. There is no wasted verbiage, and it remains highly scannable.
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 read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned, the types of claims, and the cost (free). The vagueness of 'recent' and lack of output format are minor gaps, but the tool is sufficiently described for selection and invocation.
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 100% for both parameters (agent_id and limit), with descriptions already present in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the general context of 'recent' and 'Free,' which are not tied to parameters. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 returns recent insurance claim history with specific statuses (filed, approved, partial, denied). It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('claim history'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_activity or get_sla_history, so it misses the top score.
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 use when retrieving claim history, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_activity or check_agent_insurance. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to siblings, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
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.