Lends Math Withdrawable Collateral

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds that the calculation is constrained by borrow-LTV safety and yields a raw amount, which is useful. However, it does not disclose output units, rounding/flooring behavior, or how price and decimals interact, leaving return behavior ambiguous without an output schema.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the calculation verb and object while including the key safety constraint. Every word contributes to the intended behavior, making it highly concise.

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 5-parameter function with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, one sentence is not sufficient. The definition omits return format, parameter unit conventions, and edge-case behavior such as zero debt or insufficient collateral. Annotations cover read-only safety, but computational semantics remain under-specified.

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 names none of the five required parameters. Terms like priceE8, debtLeusd, and borrowLtvBps are left unexplained, so units, scaling, and the meaning of 'raw' are unclear. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the parameter names already imply.

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 and object: 'Calculate maximum raw collateral withdrawal while retaining borrow-LTV safety.' It clearly identifies the tool's resource and constraint, and it is distinct from sibling tools like lends_math_max_borrow and lends_math_collateral_value. The 'borrow-LTV safety' qualifier makes the intent unmistakable.

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 phrase 'while retaining borrow-LTV safety' implies the tool is for computing a collateral-withdrawal amount under an LTV constraint. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related math tools or list any when-not-to-use scenarios. Usage context is implied rather than fully stated.

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