increase_collateral

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

The description discloses the private key requirement and the effect of reducing liquidation risk, which are behavioral traits not covered by the schema. With no annotations, it carries some burden but does not fully disclose other important aspects such as whether it's an on-chain transaction, what it returns, or if it is reversible.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the action and purpose, and the second highlights the prerequisite. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes meaning.

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 financial mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It covers the core action and a key prerequisite, but does not specify what the agent should expect as a return value (e.g., transaction hash) or any additional side effects, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly explained (e.g., 'raw integer with token decimals' and 'Use get_positions to find the marketIndex'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and identifies the resource ('collateral to an existing position'), making the action clear. It also states the purpose ('reduce liquidation risk'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like release_collateral and helps the agent understand the intent.

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 for when to use the tool ('to reduce liquidation risk') and specifies it applies to an existing position, which helps differentiate it from position creation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like release_collateral or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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