add_collateral

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: it builds an unsigned tx, meaning no on-chain effect occurs. It also mentions authentication requirements. However, it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or that the unsigned tx would need to be signed and broadcast separately.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key authentication requirement. It is concise with no redundant phrases.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return value and next steps. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the unsigned transaction) or how to use it with broadcast_transaction. The role of optional market_id is also unclear, leaving gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the context of adding collateral to a loan. It does not clarify the optional market_id usage or provide additional parameter-level details.

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 a specific verb 'Build' and specifies the resource 'unsigned tx to add collateral to a loan', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like withdraw_collateral or broadcast_transaction. The intent is unambiguous.

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 a clear prerequisite (requires any Floe API key) and notes that it builds an unsigned transaction, implying it is not for broadcasting. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to use this over others, and there are no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.