Lends Math Liquidation Price

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description agrees — calculating is read-only and idempotent, so no contradiction. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the 8-decimal precision and, importantly, the null return when debt or collateral is absent, an edge case an agent must handle.

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?

One sentence with two clauses, front-loaded verb, and zero filler. The computation, the precision, and the null edge case each earn their place, making this appropriately sized and efficient.

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 4-parameter math tool with no output schema, this is lean: it discloses the key edge case but omits the formula, input units, and output type beyond '8-decimal'. The sibling scale_price_to_e8 hints at an e8 price convention that is never explained, so an agent may still lack the context needed to interpret inputs and results confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: it names two key inputs ('debt or collateral') and hints at precision via '8-decimal'. However, it does not clarify liquidationThresholdBps semantics, raw-versus-normalized units, or how collateralDecimals participates in the calculation, leaving the largely self-explanatory parameter names to carry the rest.

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 states a specific computation — 'Calculate the 8-decimal liquidation price' — with a clear verb and resource, plus a distinguishing behavioral trait (null return). It reads distinctly from siblings like lends_math_health_factor or lends_math_max_borrow, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the 40+ siblings. The null-return clause implicitly warns that the tool needs debt or collateral to produce a result, but there is no scenario guidance distinguishing this from health_factor, collateral_value, or max_borrow.

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