get_user_risk_profile

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns health factors, risk scores, collateral, and debt, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention any destructive actions, authorization needs, or rate limits, but the behavioral transparency is good for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with example queries front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool has only two simple parameters, no output schema, and the description covers the returned data (health factors, risk scores, etc.), it is complete. The examples cover the intended use cases, and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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%, so the description adds value beyond the schema. The description contextualizes the 'chain' parameter by referencing examples like 'on Base', and clarifies that 'userAddress' is a wallet address. This helps the agent map parameters to use cases.

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 retrieves a user's full liquidation risk profile on a specific chain, including positions, health factors, risk scores, collateral, and debt. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_aave_user_position and get_at_risk_positions by focusing on risk profile across multiple 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., 'Is wallet 0x... at risk of liquidation?', 'What's the health factor for this address on Base?'), guiding the agent on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the examples are sufficiently clear.

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