Verifies an InsureLink reputation attestation for a wallet. Re-derives the signed payload server-side, recovers the EIP-191 signer, and returns { valid, signer, recovered, expires_at, checks }. 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 and delivers: it discloses server-side re-derivation of the payload, EIP-191 signer recovery, and the exact return object { valid, signer, recovered, expires_at, checks }. It also adds 'Free' to indicate cost. This is substantive behavioral context.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the process, the return shape, and cost. It doesn't explain the 'checks' field in detail, but overall it provides enough context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.
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% with one well-described parameter (wallet). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but given the high coverage, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Verifies an InsureLink reputation attestation for a wallet.' It uses a specific verb (verifies) and resource (attestation), and distinguishes from siblings like get_attestation and verify_reputation_snapshot by focusing on attestation verification.
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?
Usage is implied: verify an attestation when needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_reputation_snapshot or get_attestation, and no exclusions are mentioned.
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.