create_borrow_intent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool 'build[s] unsigned tx' (indicating no direct on-chain execution) and requires an API key, but it does not explain side effects, whether the intent is persisted, or what exactly the returned unsigned transaction represents. The mention of a solver matching suggests off-chain behavior but remains vague.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The key action ('Build unsigned tx') is first, followed by the purpose and a clear requirement. Every word earns its place.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It explains what the output is (an unsigned tx) but omits crucial context: how the tx should be used, whether it needs to be signed and broadcast separately, and what 'solver matches it with lenders' implies for the lifecycle. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role without additional probing.

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 input schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself offers rich context for market_id and min_ltv_bps, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 verb ('Build') and resource ('borrow request'), and adds that a solver matches it with lenders, which clarifies its role among other intent tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like create_lend_intent or create_counter_intent, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a prerequisite (API key) but gives no context about scenarios suited for creating a borrow intent, nor does it reference sibling tools like create_lend_intent or create_counter_intent.

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