Lends Math Health Factor

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses an important edge-case behavior: it returns null when debt is zero. This is useful behavioral context that is not visible in the schema or annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a key edge-case note. Every word earns its place.

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 straightforward 3-parameter math function with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the output scale and the null behavior. However, it does not clarify parameter semantics, so an agent without DeFi domain knowledge may still be uncertain about inputs.

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 the meaning, units, or relationship of valueLeusd, debtLeusd, or liquidationThresholdBps. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond them.

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 the tool's function: calculating health factor in basis points. It is specific about the resource and unit, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling lends_math_* tools.

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: use this tool when you need a health factor calculation. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the function name and context.

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