repay_txn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only builds unsigned transactions and does not sign or broadcast them, and it specifies the return format. This is important behavioral context for a transaction-building tool. It could add more, such as notes on chain-specific behavior, but the key behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and output format are front-loaded, and every word adds value. This is a model of conciseness.

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 tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and what it does. It does not explain nuances like whether multiple transactions may be returned or whether chain affects the output, but these are not essential for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema descriptions are self-sufficient for all four parameters.

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 verb ('Build unsigned transactions') and the specific resource ('to repay borrowed tokens to a DorkFi lending market'). It also names the output format ('base64-encoded transactions for signing'), which distinguishes it from other transaction builders like deposit_txn, borrow_txn, and withdraw_txn.

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?

Usage context is implied by the purpose: an agent would use this when a repayment transaction is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer in edge cases, such as liquidate_txn.

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