hyperevmSupply

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the high-level purpose, omitting critical details such as token transfer mechanics, authorization requirements (e.g., token approval), or side effects (e.g., receipt of aTokens). This lack of transparency could confuse an agent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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's complexity (simple parameters, no output schema), the description omits important contextual cues like prerequisites (e.g., token balance, approvals) or the expected outcome. An agent may lack sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without protocol-specific knowledge.

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 does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema descriptions already present. It is adequate but not enhanced.

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 action ('Supply/lend'), the target ('HyperLend protocol lending pools'), the network ('Hyperliquid EVM'), and the dual purpose ('earn lending yield and enable borrowing capacity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hyperevmWithdraw and hyperevmBorrow.

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 the tool is for supplying assets, contrasting with borrowing or withdrawing, but does not explicitly state when to use it or provide exclusion criteria. No alternatives are mentioned, though sibling names offer weak context.

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