Returns a signed, portable reputation credential (EIP-191 personal_sign) for an agent wallet. Includes score, tier, SLA summary, breach rate, signer address, and 30-day expiry. Issued only to wallets with at least one SLA on InsureLink (Bronze+). Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | Yes | Wallet address (0x...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the credential's contents, the 30-day expiry, the eligibility requirement, and that it is free. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error conditions, the 'Returns' wording implies a non-mutating operation, and the details provided are substantial.
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 three sentences, each packed with relevant information. It front-loads the primary action, then lists the return contents and eligibility criteria. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 lack of an output schema, the description effectively enumerates the returned fields (score, tier, SLA summary, breach rate, signer address, expiry) and states the eligibility requirement. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the format of the signature or how to verify it, but for a one-parameter tool, it is adequately complete.
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 description coverage is 100% (the wallet parameter is described as a 'Wallet address (0x...)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 function: it returns a signed, portable reputation credential (EIP-191 personal_sign). It specifies the resource (agent wallet's reputation) and the output contents (score, tier, SLA summary, breach rate, signer address, expiry), distinguishing it from siblings like verify_attestation and get_reputation.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an eligibility condition (at least one SLA, Bronze+) but does not reference sibling tools or explain when to choose this over verify_attestation or get_reputation. This absence is notable given the rich set of related 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.
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.