get_at_risk_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns specific fields (health factor, risk score, etc.), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it modifies data. This is adequate but not extensive.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output fields, followed by three concrete example queries. Every sentence is efficient and adds value, with no 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 that there is no output schema, the description explains the return fields (health factor, risk score, risk level, collateral, debt). It covers the 5 chains and filter options. For a tool with 3 parameters and moderate complexity, it is largely complete, though it could mention pagination or sorting behavior.

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 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by showing example usage and implying parameter combinations, but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what is in the schema.

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 finds Aave positions at risk of liquidation across 5 chains, listing specific return fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_aave_user_position (single user) and get_cross_chain_risk_summary (summary) by focusing on at-risk positions.

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 explicit example queries (e.g., 'Which positions are close to liquidation on Arbitrum?') that guide when to use the tool. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, though the sibling tools are available for more specific queries.

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