Free dry-run for any paid action (mint_sla, renew_sla, wrap_usdc, micro_reset, early_exit). Validates params, x402 header shape, and simulates the contract call against Base. Never broadcasts. Returns { simulated: true, would_succeed, revertReason? } or a precise error. Use this before calling any paid tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Paid action name (kebab-case) | |
| params | Yes | Same params you would send to the paid tool |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to rely on, the description discloses critical behavior: it simulates against Base, validates params and x402 header, and never broadcasts. This covers the main side-effect profile, though it omits details like authentication requirements or rate limits.
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 core purpose, and efficiently covers validation, simulation, return format, and usage. The inclusion of a potentially incorrect action list could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured and concise.
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 a clear return format and usage guidance, which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. However, the action name discrepancy with the schema and the lack of any distinction between simulate_action and the sibling simulate_paid_action leave important context gaps.
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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the description's list of paid action names (using underscores like renew_sla, wrap_usdc) contradicts the schema's enum values (kebab-case like renew, wrap), which is actively misleading. It adds no beneficial semantics beyond the schema and introduces errors.
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 identifies the tool as a dry-run simulator for paid actions, listing specific examples like mint_sla and early_exit. It distinguishes from the paid tools by stating 'Never broadcasts,' but does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'simulate_paid_action', preventing a 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 states 'Use this before calling any paid tool,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternative simulation tools like simulate_paid_action_batch, so it lacks full when-not guidance.
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.