Verifies a claim_breach_credit transaction by tx hash and returns a canonical mitigation receipt suitable for insurer/registry attestations. Reads from existing on-chain settlement records — no new state. Requires x402 payment ($0.001). Returns payment instructions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txHash | Yes | Transaction hash of the breach-mitigation call |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Reads from existing on-chain settlement records — no new state' (non-destructive), and 'Requires x402 payment ($0.001)' (auth/payment). It also mentions returns payment instructions and a canonical receipt. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond schema.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes: verification action, read-only/no-state behavior, and payment requirement. No redundancy or filler.
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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers input, output nature, side effects, and prerequisites. It is complete enough for effective invocation, though it could mention failure behavior (e.g., invalid tx hash) for extra robustness.
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 the single parameter txHash, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the parameter is a 'claim_breach_credit transaction' hash, clarifying which type of hash is expected beyond the generic schema description.
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?
States a specific verb ('verifies') and resource ('claim_breach_credit transaction by tx hash'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like verify_transaction_safety or claim_breach_credit. It also names the output ('canonical mitigation receipt') with purpose, leaving no ambiguity.
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?
Clearly indicates when to use the tool: after a claim_breach_credit transaction, to verify and obtain a receipt. It also notes the x402 payment requirement, a key prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the context is sufficient for basic differentiation.
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.