redeem_cdp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Effectively discloses the unsigned transaction pattern ('CBOR hex for client-side signing'), which is crucial behavioral context preventing mistaken assumptions about direct chain submission. Could improve by describing state change effects (what happens to collateral/CDP after redemption).

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 sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with core action, followed by mechanism (CBOR hex), followed by usage tip. Efficient structure where every clause 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 no output schema, description adequately covers the tool's purpose and mechanism. Missing explicit clarification of redemption economics (burning iAssets to unlock collateral) and return value structure, but sufficient for an AI agent to invoke correctly given the high-quality input schema.

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 high (80%), establishing baseline context. Description adds valuable semantics for the 'amount' parameter specifically (explaining the 'total minted amount' pattern for max redemption), which is not obvious from the schema's 'smallest unit' description alone.

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?

Specific verb ('Redeem') + resource ('iAssets from a CDP') clearly stated. Distinguishes from siblings (mint_cdp, burn_cdp, close_cdp) by specifying redemption action. Includes critical mechanism detail ('builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex)') that clarifies this is a transaction builder, not direct submission.

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 specific usage tip for the amount parameter ('To redeem the maximum possible, pass the total minted amount'), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like close_cdp or withdraw_cdp. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing sufficient iAssets to burn) or workflow context.

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