close_cdp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and performs well: it explicitly states the tool builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) requiring client-side signing, which is critical behavioral context for blockchain operations. It notes collateral is reclaimed, but omits potential failure modes or fee structures.

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?

Single, efficiently structured sentence uses an em-dash to separate the primary action from the implementation detail (CBOR hex). Every word earns its place; front-loaded with the verb and object; no 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 complexity of CDP closure (4 parameters, blockchain context, no output schema), the description adequately compensates by specifying the return format (unsigned CBOR hex transaction). However, it omits whether the operation is final, if debt repayment is required beforehand, or what happens to minted synthetic assets.

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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no specific parameter guidance (e.g., explaining that cdpTxHash and cdpOutputIndex identify the specific UTxO, or clarifying the asset enum values), relying entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline 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 clearly states the specific action (close CDP), the resource (CDP), and the outcome (reclaim collateral). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like liquidate_cdp (forced closure by others), withdraw_cdp (partial removal), and burn_cdp (asset destruction) by specifying the standard user-initiated exit that returns collateral.

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?

While the term 'close' implies this is for exiting a position completely, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like withdraw_cdp (partial) or redeem_cdp. No prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., whether debt must be repaid first), leaving some contextual gaps for the agent.

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