liquidate_cdp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates that the tool builds an unsigned CBOR transaction for client-side signing rather than executing the liquidation directly, which is critical for blockchain operations. It could improve by mentioning liquidator requirements or collateral distribution outcomes.

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 is a single, efficiently structured sentence using an em-dash to separate the core action from the technical implementation detail. Every phrase serves a distinct purpose, with no redundant or filler content, making it appropriately sized for quick comprehension.

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 DeFi liquidation and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral contract: it identifies the stability pool mechanism, the unsigned transaction output format, and the undercollateralized precondition. It could be more complete by mentioning liquidator eligibility requirements or error conditions.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions), with the 'asset' enum lacking a description string. The description provides implicit context that the address belongs to the liquidator and the CDP references identify the target, but does not explicitly map or add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for the documented parameters.

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 ('Liquidate'), target resource ('undercollateralized CDP'), mechanism ('through the stability pool'), and output format ('builds an unsigned transaction'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like close_cdp or burn_cdp by specifying the undercollateralized state and stability pool pathway.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'undercollateralized CDP,' indicating when liquidation is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., requiring iUSD or a stability pool account) and does not mention alternatives like close_cdp for healthy positions or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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