analyze_cdp_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to disclose computational complexity, what specific health metrics are returned (liquidation thresholds, ratio percentages), pagination behavior, or any rate limiting concerns.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence of nine words with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target metrics, and target entity.

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 single-parameter analytical tool, the description adequately covers the input domain. However, given the lack of output schema and the analytical nature of the tool, the description omits what analysis results are returned (e.g., risk ratings, numerical ratios), leaving a gap in contextual completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input parameter 'owner' is fully documented in the schema itself (including format details for hex/bech32). The description adds no supplementary parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Analyze') and clearly identifies the resource ('health and collateral ratios of CDPs') and scope ('for an owner'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling getter tools like 'get_cdps_by_owner' by emphasizing analytical depth (health/ratios) rather than simple retrieval, though explicit differentiation is absent.

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 implied usage guidance through its specific focus on 'health and collateral ratios,' suggesting use for risk assessment rather than basic listing. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives (e.g., when to use 'get_cdps_by_owner' vs this tool).

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