Parses a natural-language command (e.g. 'renew my SLA #42 for 5 years', 'check reputation for 0x…', 'pay 1.50 USDC to 0x…') into a structured InsureLink action plan with endpoint, params, payment requirements, and confidence. Free preview returns the supported grammar; full classification requires x402 payment ($0.001) at the paid endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| utterance | No | Optional sample utterance to echo in the preview response. |
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 critical behavioral aspects: the free preview vs. paid full classification distinction, the exact payment amount ($0.001) and method (x402), and the output fields. It does not cover error conditions or rate limits, but for a parse 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 two sentences that front-load the core function with examples, then concisely explain the preview vs. paid model. Every sentence adds value, and the examples improve clarity without bloat. It is well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 tool's complexity (payment, preview mode) and the absence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It lists the output components (endpoint, params, payment requirements, confidence) and the payment requirement. It could clarify how the paid endpoint is invoked or what happens after payment, but the description is solid for a single-parameter 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 provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, 'utterance', describing it as an optional sample to echo in the preview response. The tool description adds context about the free preview returning the supported grammar and the paid endpoint for full classification, which clarifies the parameter's role in the tool's dual-mode behavior. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the preview/paid workflow.
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 natural-language parser that converts utterances into structured InsureLink action plans, with concrete examples ('renew my SLA #42', 'check reputation', 'pay 1.50 USDC'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on intent parsing rather than direct actions, and it specifies the output components (endpoint, params, payment, confidence).
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 implies usage when a user provides a free-form command and needs a structured action plan. It explicitly mentions the free preview and the paid full classification, giving context on how to proceed. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of calling the specific endpoint directly' or mention alternatives by name, so it falls short of full exclusion 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.