sync_market_txn

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool builds unsigned transactions and returns base64-encoded transactions for signing, and it discloses the underlying contract call (sync_market(uint64)). It does not detail permissions or potential errors, but the safety of building an unsigned transaction is clear.

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 sentences with no redundancy: the first sentence defines the purpose, the second sentence gives the contract call and return format. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a transaction-building tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, implementation, and return format. It lacks an explicit usage alternative comparison, but the core information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present. The sender and chain parameters are in the schema, and the return type is described.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), and the description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The mention of 'interest accrual, index updates' in the description gives context to the symbol parameter, but the schema's description already covers the idea of the market. Thus, the description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('unsigned transactions to sync a DorkFi lending market's state'), and specifies the on-chain call (sync_market(uint64)) and return format. This distinguishes it from the sibling sync_user_market_for_price_change_txn by focusing on market-level state rather than user-level.

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 on the tool's function—syncing market state (interest accrual, index updates)—and mentions the contract call. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, such as sync_user_market_for_price_change_txn, or provide exclusion criteria.

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