liquidate_txn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool builds unsigned transactions, returns base64-encoded output for signing, and explains the economic mechanism (debt repayment + collateral bonus). This goes beyond the bare minimum, though it doesn't enumerate risks or edge cases.

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 purpose, and every clause contributes. It states what it does, explains the mechanism, and specifies the return format with zero wasted words.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers the return format (base64-encoded transactions) and operational context. Combined with the rich 100% schema coverage, the tool is well defined for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% with descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that 'amount' refers to debt, but doesn't add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Build unsigned transactions to liquidate an undercollateralized position.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling transaction builders like repay_txn or deposit_txn by focusing on liquidation, so an agent can easily identify when to use it.

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 clearly implies usage for undercollateralized positions, stating the liquidator repays debt and seizes collateral. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the liquidation context is distinct enough from normal repayment or other operations to serve as clear guidance.

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