deposit_cdp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It critically discloses that the tool builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) rather than executing on-chain, which is essential behavioral context for agent flow control. It could further improve by mentioning prerequisites (CDP must exist) or side effects (improves health ratio).

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 sentence, two clauses. Front-loaded with action ('Deposit additional collateral'), immediately followed by scope ('into a CDP'), then critical implementation detail ('builds an unsigned transaction...'). Zero redundant words; every segment earns its place by conveying distinct operational or behavioral information.

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?

Compensates effectively for the missing output schema by explicitly stating the return format (CBOR hex). Given the complexity of UTxO-based CDP operations (requiring txHash + outputIndex), the description provides sufficient context for invocation, though it could mention that the CDP must exist or reference the collateral asset type.

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 80% (high), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic context by identifying the 'amount' as 'collateral' and linking cdpTxHash/cdpOutputIndex to the target CDP, but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or format specifics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Deposit additional collateral'), the target resource ('CDP'), and uses 'additional' to distinguish from open_cdp. The CBOR hex detail adds technical specificity. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like withdraw_cdp or burn_cdp to fully differentiate use cases.

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 term 'additional collateral' implies usage for existing CDPs versus creating new ones, and 'client-side signing' clarifies the execution pattern. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g., 'use when increasing collateral ratio') or explicit contrasts with alternatives like withdraw_cdp.

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