open_cdp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses the unsigned transaction pattern, CBOR hex format, and client-side signing requirement. Does not mention idempotency, validation failure modes, or gas fee handling, leaving minor gaps.

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 efficient sentence uses em-dash to append critical behavioral detail without verbosity. Every clause earns its place: action, scope, and implementation pattern are all conveyed with zero waste.

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?

Adequate for a complex financial operation given the lack of output schema and annotations. Covers the core transaction pattern but omits return value structure details, collateral health constraints, or error conditions that would aid an agent in handling the unsigned transaction output.

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 75% with clear descriptions (bech32 format, lovelace units, enum values). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 specific action ('Open') and resource ('CDP position'), and distinguishes from siblings by clarifying it 'builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex)' rather than executing on-chain. The 'new' modifier clearly scopes it to creation vs. adjustment tools like adjust_rob or deposit_cdp.

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?

Provides implicit context that this is a preparation step requiring 'client-side signing,' which guides usage toward transaction building flows. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance vs. similar minting tools (e.g., mint_cdp) or prerequisites like minimum collateral ratios.

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