feed_interest_oracle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) rather than submitting it, and that owner-key signing is required. It also explains the fixed-at-deployment constraint of oracleBiasTime and oracleOwner.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The ADMIN/MAINTENANCE label is front-loaded, followed by the core action and the essential constraints. Every sentence 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?

For a 5-parameter admin tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, input constraints, required signing context, and output form (unsigned CBOR hex). Minor details like submission/fee handling are outside the tool's direct scope and not necessary for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents 4 of 5 parameters, and the description adds critical context beyond the schema: oracleBiasTime and oracleOwner are fixed at deployment and must be supplied by the protocol admin, and newInterestRate uses a scaled integer encoding with a concrete example. This compensates for the undocumented asset enum.

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 ('Update'), a precise resource ('interest rate stored in an interest oracle UTxO'), and an explicit ADMIN/MAINTENANCE scope. This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_interest_oracle and from feed_price_oracle, which targets price rather than interest.

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 clearly frames when the tool should be used: by protocol admins performing maintenance, and it notes the unsigned transaction must be signed by the oracle owner key. It implies that only admins with the owner key can validly invoke it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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