mint_cdp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: mutation type (debt increase), transaction format (unsigned CBOR hex), and execution model (client-side signing required). Does not mention collateral requirements or liquidation risks.

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 core action, parenthetical for financial implication, em-dash for technical implementation details. 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?

Appropriate for complexity level. Without output schema, explicitly states return type (CBOR hex). Covers debt mechanics and signing requirements. Could enhance with collateral health warnings or prerequisite checks, but sufficient for safe invocation.

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 80% (4/5 params described). The 'asset' parameter lacks schema description but the description compensates by specifying 'iAssets', giving semantic context to the enum values (iUSD, iBTC, etc.). Baseline 3 raised to 4 for gap compensation.

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 verb 'Mint' with resource 'iAssets from an existing CDP', distinguishing from open_cdp. Parenthetical '(increases debt)' clarifies financial effect. Em-dash section clarifies output format (unsigned CBOR hex) and signing requirement.

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 implied usage through 'existing CDP' (suggests not for new positions) and 'increases debt' (suggests opposite of burn_cdp). However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives versus siblings like leverage_cdp or deposit_cdp.

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