analyze_cdp_health

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. The verb 'Analyze' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'accounting for accrued interest' discloses a specific computational behavior that affects results. However, it does not explicitly state that no state is modified, nor mention permissions or output side effects, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

One sentence, about 14 words, front-loaded with the main purpose and ending with the important accrued-interest qualifier. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description correctly identifies the input and analytical scope. Yet it omits what the output looks like (e.g., risk score, per-CDP breakdown) and how to handle edge cases like an owner with no CDPs, so the agent is not fully prepared for the response.

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 single parameter `owner` is already fully described in the input schema ('Owner payment key hash (56-char hex) or bech32 address'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description only restates that the analysis is 'for an owner' without adding new formatting or semantic details, 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?

States a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('collateral ratios and liquidation risk of CDPs') for a given owner, with the additional qualifier 'accounting for accrued interest'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cdps_by_owner or get_all_cdps, which merely retrieve CDP data. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Does not provide any when-to-use guidance or name alternatives, such as get_cdps_by_owner or liquidate_cdp. The only usage signal is the description's inherent purpose, so an agent is left to infer when to select it over other CDP-related tools.

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