collect_interest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing, which is a critical behavioral trait—it does not submit anything on-chain directly. It could additionally mention prerequisites or that the signed transaction must be submitted separately, but the core non-submitting behavior is clear.

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?

A single well-structured sentence front-loads the core action ('Batch-collect accrued interest') and then delivers the essential behavioral detail (unsigned transaction CBOR hex). Every phrase earns its place; there is 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 description is mostly complete for a moderately complex transaction-building tool: it explains the action, the inputs implied by the schema, and the output format (CBOR hex). Since there is no output schema, the note about unsigned CBOR helps, though it could go slightly further by clarifying that no on-chain submission or signing is performed by the tool itself. Overall it gives an agent enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 67%, with address and cdps described in the schema and asset covered by an enum. The description adds only general context like 'one or more' and 'accrued interest' but does not explain parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This is roughly the baseline for partial 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 states a specific verb ('Batch-collect'), the resource ('accrued interest from CDP positions'), and the destination ('into the interest collector'). It also distinguishes this from related tools like distribute_interest by framing the direction of funds, and adds the key detail that it builds an unsigned transaction rather than performing a direct action.

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 clear usage context: when you want to batch-collect accrued interest from one or more CDPs. It implies the appropriate scenario but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as distribute_interest. Still, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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