new_crypto_loan_fixed_borrow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the tool creates an order, failing to disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or behavior like what happens to existing orders. This is insufficient for a financial action.

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?

The description is short and includes a list, but the structure is generic (docstring style repeating argument names). It is adequate but not front-loaded or optimized for quick scanning.

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 the complexity of a borrowing action, no output schema, and many related sibling tools, the description lacks important context like how to determine valid interest rates or terms, and does not reference complementary tools like market data getters.

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?

The description adds basic one-word explanations (e.g., 'Borrow currency') to the parameter names, which are already clear from titles. With 0% schema description coverage, more detail like format constraints or examples is needed but missing.

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 it creates a fixed-term crypto loan borrow order, which distinguishes it from flexible borrow tools like 'new_crypto_loan_flexible_borrow'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'crypto_loan_borrow' tool, and the description lacks explicit comparison.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'new_crypto_loan_flexible_borrow' or 'crypto_loan_borrow'. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or context for fixed-term borrowing.

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