borrow_txn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool returns base64-encoded unsigned transactions for signing, and that sufficient collateral is required. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, though it does not cover failure modes or validation behavior.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information. No redundant or filler content exists.

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?

Given the simple structure with four fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, the output format, and the key precondition. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it omits error-handling details.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score of 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?

Clearly states it builds unsigned transactions to borrow tokens from a DorkFi lending market. This distinguishes it from sibling transaction builders like deposit_txn or repay_txn by specifying the borrow action and the protocol.

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 for borrowing tokens and notes the collateral requirement, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools cover other operations, yet no direct comparison is offered.

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