agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but is minimal. It mentions the default interest rate mode (variable, mode 2), which adds some behavioral context. However, it fails to disclose critical traits like permission requirements, potential risks (e.g., liquidation), rate limits, or what the response entails, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key default behavior. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral implications (e.g., effects on collateral, error conditions), response format, or integration with sibling tools like 'getAaveUserData', making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by clarifying the default for 'interestRateMode' (variable, mode 2), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies for other 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 action ('Borrows tokens from Aave') and resource ('using your supplied collateral'), specifying the financial operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'intentAaveDeposit' or 'intentAaveRepay' by focusing on borrowing, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the text.

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 implies usage context through 'using your supplied collateral' and mentions the default interest rate mode, suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'intentAaveWithdraw' or prerequisites such as having sufficient collateral.

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