checkHealthFactor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the boolean alert result, the threshold comparison, and defines alert tiers (safe/warning/danger/critical) with numeric cutoffs. It does not specify the full response shape or error behavior, but the key monitoring semantics are present.

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 definition opens with the core purpose, then return semantics, usage loop, and alert tiers. It is compact and front-loaded, with each sentence adding distinct value; the only minor redundancy is 'warning (below threshold)' after the earlier alert:true statement.

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?

For a simple read-style monitoring tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage loop, threshold behavior, and alert levels. It lacks a formal output schema, but none exists, and the described behavior is sufficient for an agent to invoke and react to it.

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 100%; both address and threshold already have descriptions, including default and range. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond referencing the threshold, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('a wallet's health factor'), and the comparison ('against a threshold'). It also names the alerting behavior, which separates it from read tools like getPosition or getMarkets.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a monitoring loop: call on a cron interval and trigger repay() or supply() when alert:true. This is clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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