close_sp_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: it specifies the operation returns an 'unsigned transaction (CBOR hex)' requiring 'client-side signing', indicating this is a write operation that doesn't execute immediately. It also clarifies that all iAssets are withdrawn. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions or idempotency.

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 two efficiently constructed sentences with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and effect, followed by the return format specification. Every word 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?

Despite no output schema existing, the description adequately covers the return value (unsigned CBOR hex transaction). For a blockchain mutation tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no annotations, it provides sufficient context for invocation, though it could mention prerequisites like account ownership verification or request status requirements.

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%, documenting all three parameters (address, accountTxHash, accountOutputIndex). The description provides no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema (e.g., explaining the UTxO reference pattern or address ownership requirements), warranting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a stability pool account'), the resource affected ('stability pool account'), and the outcome ('withdraw all deposited iAssets'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like create_sp_account (inverse operation) and adjust_sp_account (modification vs termination).

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 verb 'Close' implies terminal usage, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus adjust_sp_account (for partial withdrawals) or prerequisites (e.g., whether pending requests must be processed first). No alternative tools or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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