adjust_sp_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and successfully communicates the critical behavioral trait that it 'Returns an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing,' indicating the operation is not immediately executed. It could improve by mentioning error conditions if the account doesn't exist or minimum balance requirements.

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 consists of three efficient sentences with zero waste: purpose declaration first, mechanism clarification second, and return format third. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value (unsigned CBOR hex transaction). With 100% input schema coverage and five well-documented parameters, the description provides sufficient context for invocation, though it could explicitly state the prerequisite that the account must already exist.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3), the description adds essential semantic meaning by clarifying 'Positive amount deposits, negative withdraws,' which explains the sign convention for the amount parameter beyond the schema's technical description.

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 the tool 'Deposit[s] to or withdraw[s] from an existing stability pool account,' using specific verbs and clearly identifying the resource. The word 'existing' effectively distinguishes this from sibling create_sp_account, while 'deposit/withdraw' differentiates it from close_sp_account.

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 prerequisite context by specifying 'existing' stability pool account, hinting that create_sp_account must be used first. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over close_sp_account (e.g., partial vs. full withdrawal) or decision criteria for depositing versus withdrawing.

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