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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the meaningful detail that health factor <=1.0 means liquidatable, but leaves ambiguity about what 'per pool' means (e.g., returns per-pool list?) and does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether it is purely read-only (though 'get_' implies so). This is a notable transparency gap.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no wasted words. The second sentence adds essential interpretation without elaboration. Excellent 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the return shape. It states the tool checks health factor and risk level, but does not specify whether the output is a single value or per-pool breakdown, nor the type/format of 'risk level'. Given the simple 2-param signature, the description is adequate but incomplete for a no-output-schema 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'chain' and 'address' have clear descriptions and chain has an enum. The description adds no parameter-level details, but the schema already fully documents them, so 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 clearly states the tool checks a user's health factor and risk level per pool, using a specific verb ('check') and resource. It also provides the key threshold interpretation (<=1.0 means liquidatable), which distinguishes it from nearby getter tools like get_position or get_user.

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 when health factor or liquidation risk is relevant, and it explains the threshold context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., get_liquidation_candidates, get_position) and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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