Skip to main content
Glama

InsureLink

by io.github.skewing1

insurelink_charge

Lovable-friendly entry point: same x402 quote → pay → call loop as pay_then_call, plus vertical-aware pricing. Pass vertical (logistics, legal, oracles, banking, fintech, healthcare, insurance, government, defense, …) and the upstream x402 server re-prices each accepts[] entry by tier (standard 1× / regulated 1.5× / sovereign 2.5× / defense 3×). Pass attestation: "pio:<id>" (or fedramp:/soc2:) for a 20% compliance discount on regulated+ tiers. The signed receipt envelope is tagged source: "lovable" and includes a vertical: { claimed_slug, attestation, quoted: { tier, multiplier, attested, ... } } block recording the tier the upstream actually quoted — that is the audit trail for tier billing. Returns { paid, upstream_status, response, signed_context: { envelope, envelope_json, envelope_sha256, signature, signer, scheme: 'EIP-191' } }. Pass idempotency_key to safely retry without double-settling.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesTarget paid endpoint.
bodyNoRaw request body. JSON-encode before passing.
modeNo`quote_only` returns the 402 quote without settling. Default `pay_and_call`.
methodNoHTTP method. Default GET.
headersNoExtra request headers (Content-Type, Authorization, etc.).
purposeNoFree-form audit string included in the signed receipt.
verticalNoIndustry/sector slug. Drives the per-vertical pricing tier in accepts[] (standard 1× / regulated 1.5× / sovereign 2.5× / defense 3×). Forwarded to upstream as `vertical` body field and `x-vertical` header.
attestationNoThird-party compliance attestation in the form `pio:<id>` / `fedramp:<id>` / `soc2:<id>`. Grants a 20% discount on regulated/sovereign/defense tiers. Forwarded as `attestation` body field and `x-attestation` header. Recorded in the signed envelope so verifiers can audit the claimed compliance.
agent_walletNoCalling agent wallet (logged in the signed receipt for downstream attribution).
idempotency_keyNoClient-supplied idempotency key. If provided, repeated calls with the same key return the cached response and never settle a second payment. A subsequent call with the same key but a different request payload is rejected with `idempotency_key_conflict`. Keys are retained for 24h.
max_amount_usdcNoRefuse to settle if the 402 quote exceeds this USDC amount. Default 10.
x_payment_headerNoBase64-encoded X-PAYMENT header (caller pre-builds settlement payload). Required unless mode='quote_only'.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses payment/settlement behavior, pricing tiers (1x/1.5x/2.5x/3x), attestation discounts, idempotency semantics, the 'source: lovable' tag, and the audit trail block in the receipt. It also warns against double-settling via idempotency_key.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense and informative without fluff. Every sentence adds value—pricing logic, attestation, return structure, idempotency. It is a bit long but appropriate given the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Completes the picture for a complex payment tool: describes the full loop, return object, pricing, and failure safety. No output schema exists, but the return structure is spelled out. Could mention max_amount_usdc, but that is already in the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema for vertical, attestation, and idempotency_key—explaining multipliers, discount applicability, and retry/conflict behavior. Other parameters are standard HTTP fields and need no further explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs an x402 quote → pay → call loop, same as pay_then_call, plus vertical-aware pricing. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pay_then_call and specifies the return envelope and pricing behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly references pay_then_call as the baseline, making it clear this is the variant to use when vertical pricing/attestation discounts are needed. Provides concrete instructions for passing vertical and attestation. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All InsureLink toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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'.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources