adjust_sp_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool returns an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing, which is a critical behavioral trait distinguishing it from an on-chain mutation. It does not disclose failure modes or prerequisites, but the 'existing account' qualifier and the return-format disclosure provide strong transparency for a transaction-builder tool.

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 convey the purpose, direction convention, scope, and return format with no filler. The most important information (deposit/withdraw, existing account) is front-loaded, and every 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides the key missing context: the operation returns an unsigned CBOR transaction rather than executing on-chain. It also clarifies the scope to existing accounts. It could go further by explicitly routing users to create_sp_account for new accounts, but for a five-parameter tool with full schema documentation, the description is largely complete.

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 input schema already fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema states; the positive/negative amount convention is already present in the schema's amount description. This matches the baseline of 3 for a fully covered schema.

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 phrase ('Deposit to or withdraw from') and a clear resource ('an existing stability pool account'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_sp_account and close_sp_account by emphasizing 'existing'. It also removes ambiguity about the direction of the operation via the positive/negative convention.

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 when to use the tool: it is for existing stability pool accounts, so it is not for opening or closing one. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as create_sp_account or close_sp_account, and it gives no exclusions or conditions for when not to use it. The usage context is clear but only implied, not stated.

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