merge_cdps

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Critically discloses the key behavioral pattern: it 'builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing' rather than executing on-chain. This is essential safety information. Missing minor details about what happens to source CDPs post-merge.

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, dense sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action (merge), followed by critical implementation detail (unsigned CBOR hex). 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?

Given 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return type implication (CBOR hex). However, given the complexity of CDP merging and lack of annotations, it could briefly mention the output format explicitly or state that the transaction requires submission after signing.

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 has 100% description coverage with clear definitions for 'address' (bech32 format) and 'cdpOutRefs' (minimum 2). Description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema quality. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Merge') and resource ('CDPs') with scope ('into one'). Distinguished from siblings like burn_cdp, close_cdp, or deposit_cdp by specifying the consolidation action. The additional clause about building an unsigned transaction further clarifies the tool's function.

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?

Implies usage through the 'client-side signing' note (indicating this is for transaction preparation, not direct execution), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like close_cdp. The minimum 2 requirement is only in schema, not description text.

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