Discovers bonded agent-network providers (clean-IP proxy egress, private mempool relay) listed on InsureLink. Returns provider wallets, x402 payment URLs, prices, and Smart Wallet / EOA compatibility hints. Free preview via this tool; full directory requires x402 payment ($0.001) at the paid endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template | No | Optional template slug filter (e.g. proxy-egress-provider, private-mempool-relay) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the free-versus-paid nature, what the tool returns, and the fact that it 'discovers' (read-like) rather than modifies. It does not mention rate limits or authorization, but for a discovery tool this is adequate.
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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Each sentence earns its place, covering purpose, return values, and the free/paid distinction without 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?
The description provides essential return-value information and the critical free/paid context. While there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing key returned fields. Minor gaps like the meaning of 'bonded' or pagination behavior are not significant for a simple lookup tool.
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 already documents the single optional 'template' parameter with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Discovers' and clearly identifies the resource ('bonded agent-network providers' with examples like clean-IP proxy egress and private mempool relay). It also lists the returned data (provider wallets, x402 payment URLs, prices, compatibility hints), making it distinct from sibling tools that focus on attestations, reputation, and insurance actions.
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 gives clear context: it is a free preview tool, and the full directory requires payment at a separate endpoint. This clarifies when to use this tool (to preview providers) versus when to seek the paid endpoint, though it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools for provider discovery.
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.