take_loan

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'no price liquidation,' but omits critical details like interest rates, collateral locking, repayment process, or consequences after the loan duration. The tool's behavior is insufficiently documented.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, no wasted words. It states the purpose and a key guideline in an efficient, front-loaded manner.

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 (financial loan operation) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, interest, repayment, or other behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value for the parameters beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the tool's core function: taking a loan against any token. It highlights a distinctive feature ('no price liquidation') and explicitly distinguishes a sibling tool ('For STASIS prefer vault_borrow'). This meets the highest standard for purpose clarity.

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 provides one specific usage guideline: for STASIS token, use vault_borrow instead. However, it lacks broader guidance on when to use this tool versus other loan-related siblings (e.g., increase_loan_collateral, repay_loan). The exclusion is helpful but not comprehensive.

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