borrow_txn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the tool builds unsigned transactions, returns base64-encoded transactions, and requires sufficient collateral. It does not mention potential errors or whether the collateral check happens at build time, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver action, precondition, and output format with no filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what is built and for whom) is front-loaded.

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 transaction-building tool with four documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential extra context: it returns base64-encoded unsigned transactions for signing and requires collateral. Some operational details like failure behavior or collateral specification are absent, but the core invocation and output contract is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, with all four parameters having meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds the overarching context of collateral sufficiency and unsigned output but does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('unsigned transactions to borrow tokens from a DorkFi lending market'), clearly stating what the tool produces. It differentiates itself from sibling transaction tools like deposit_txn, repay_txn, and withdraw_txn through the explicit 'borrow tokens' action.

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 clearly identifies borrowing as the use case and adds a critical precondition: 'Requires sufficient collateral.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling tool names and the borrow-specific language make the intended context clear.

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