repay_all_txn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the step-by-step process (queries borrow amount, wraps tokens if needed, calls repay_all), the output format (base64-encoded transactions for signing), and that it does not execute transactions itself. This is thorough for a transaction builder.

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 concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second outlines process and output. No filler words, front-loaded with the most important information, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's operation: purpose, internal steps, and return format. Given the simple schema (3 required params) and no output schema, this is complete. It also differentiates from the partial repay sibling by highlighting 'entire borrow balance'.

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 a small behavioral detail (wrapping tokens if needed) but does not expand on parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions for chain, sender, and symbol are sufficient.

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 builds unsigned transactions to repay a user's entire borrow balance for a DorkFi lending market. The verb 'repay' plus scope 'entire borrow balance' distinguishes it from sibling tools like repay_txn and repay_on_behalf_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?

The description implies usage when the goal is to repay the full outstanding balance, emphasizing 'entire borrow balance' and 'calls repay_all'. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide selection without exclusions.

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