Lends Math Collateral Value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful context about the output scale ("raw 6-decimal leUSD"), but says nothing about error behavior, rounding, or calculation assumptions.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the verb and key qualifiers, with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple pure-calculation tool.

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 low-complexity math utility, the one-liner plus annotations cover the safety and output-scale basics. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanations, the exact formula and meaning of priceE8/collateralDecimals remain implicit.

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 collateralRaw, collateralDecimals, or priceE8. The phrase "raw 6-decimal" hints at output units, but the agent must infer each parameter's role from its name rather than from documented semantics.

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 specific verb, "Calculate", and a precise resource, "raw 6-decimal leUSD collateral value." The qualifiers "raw" and "6-decimal" distinguish this from sibling math tools like withdrawable_collateral or health_factor without requiring the agent to open schemas.

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 given about when to use this tool versus its many math siblings. It does not name alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.

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