repay_on_behalf_txn

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose key behaviors itself. It does so by stating that transactions are unsigned and that the output is base64-encoded for signing, which is critical for an agent to understand the tool's non-executing nature. It also clarifies the sender/borrower roles, though it does not cover every possible edge case.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the main purpose and immediately follow with role clarification and output format. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, how it works, and what it returns. It lacks an output schema but compensates by explicitly stating the base64-encoded output for signing. It could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but those are not essential for basic understanding.

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 schema provides 100% parameter coverage, so the description adds little semantic value. It only reinforces the sender/borrower relationship already defined in the schema, and does not provide additional details like amount formatting or edge cases. A score of 3 is the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 that the tool builds unsigned transactions to repay another user's borrowed tokens to a DorkFi lending market. The verb 'repay' and resource 'another user's borrowed tokens' are specific, and the description distinguishes from sibling repay tools by emphasizing 'on behalf of the borrower'.

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 provides clear context by specifying that the sender pays on behalf of the borrower, making it obvious when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like repay_txn or state when not to use, so it falls short of the top score.

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