claim_liquidation

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the loan is closed, if collateral transfer is atomic), prerequisites, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief to cover necessary details. It does not earn its place as it omits critical information about parameters and usage context.

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 tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to specify when the loan must be expired, what hub_id references, or what the return value is, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the two parameters (loan_type, hub_id). It adds no meaning beyond the schema field names, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them correctly.

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 uses a clear verb-object structure: 'Claim remaining collateral from expired loan.' It identifies the specific action and resource, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like claim_rewards or claim_leverage_liquidation, though it does not explicitly mention that distinction.

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 description implies usage when a loan is expired ('from expired loan'), but provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. With siblings like claim_leverage_liquidation, explicit usage boundaries would help, but they are absent.

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