get_health_factor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully explains that health factor <= 1.0 means the position is liquidatable, and 'Check' implies a read operation. However, it does not describe the response format, per-pool aggregation, or any limitations.

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 two concise sentences with the core purpose and threshold meaning front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant content.

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, 2-parameter read-only lookup, the schema plus description give an agent sufficient information to select and invoke the tool: chain, address, and the meaning of the health-factor result. Missing output structure and explicit sibling differentiation are minor for this simple tool.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema, so schema description coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond the health-factor interpretation.

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 operation (Check) and resource (user's health factor and risk level per pool), and adds the liquidation threshold as a meaningful semantic detail. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_position or get_liquidation_candidates, so differentiation relies mostly on the unique 'health factor' terminology.

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 liquidation threshold implies the tool is for assessing liquidation risk, which gives some usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer the proper use case.

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