create_lend_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: builds an unsigned transaction (not broadcasting), requires an API key, and relies on a solver for matching. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, authentication, and the matching workflow. It doesn't explicitly describe the response or next steps (like broadcasting), but the sibling list includes broadcast_transaction, and the 'unsigned tx' wording implies the follow-up. Overall adequate.

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 has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter explanations (e.g., max_ltv_bps limits). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'Build unsigned tx to create a lending offer' with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('unsigned tx for lending offer'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_borrow_intent and create_counter_intent.

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?

Provides useful context: this is for creating a lending offer, a solver matches it with borrowers, and it requires any Floe API key. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the workflow is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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