repay_loan

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the unsigned-transaction nature, auto-approval behavior, slippage protection, and auth requirements. However, it does not explain what happens with the built transaction (e.g., broadcast) or the detailed effects on the loan state, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler or redundant information. Each sentence 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 there is no output schema, the description should specify the return value and any follow-up steps. It says 'Build unsigned tx', which implies an unsigned transaction output, but does not clarify its format or how to broadcast it. With many transaction-related sibling tools, a bit more context would be helpful, but the description is minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds 'slippage protection' which links to slippage_bps, but does not enrich understanding of wallet_address or loan_id beyond their schema definitions. Baseline 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 'Build unsigned tx to repay a loan', a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from liquidation or collateral management siblings. The mention of 'auto-approval and slippage protection' adds further specificity.

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 notes the API key requirement but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives to other loan transaction tools. Usage context is implied by the tool name and description, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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