fluid_build_lending_deposit

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool builds an unsigned transaction that must be signed and sent by the agent's wallet, setting expectations about its non-sending nature. It also discloses the underlying ERC4626 deposit() method. This covers key behavioral traits, though it does not mention prerequisites like token approvals or failure modes, which are secondary for a transaction builder.

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, each earning its place: purpose, return behavior, and underlying method. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant or filler content. The structure is clean and appropriately sized for a transaction builder tool.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: it builds an unsigned transaction, returns data for signing, and uses a specific method. It doesn't describe the return format in detail, but that is often unnecessary for a builder tool. The schema covers most parameters, making the description sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for 4 out of 5 parameters (80% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning; it doesn't explain chain, amount, receiver, or ftoken_address beyond what the schema already states. The undocumented rpc_url parameter is not addressed in the description, but the high schema coverage mitigates the need.

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 function: building an unsigned transaction to deposit assets into a Fluid fToken lending pool. It uses a specific verb and resource (build + deposit) and differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly naming the ERC4626 deposit() method, distinguishing it from mint, redeem, and native deposit variants.

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 (when depositing assets into an fToken lending pool) and specifies that it returns unsigned transaction data. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the method name and context implicitly guide the agent. Sibling tools' names (e.g., deposit_native) further clarify distinctions, so no explicit 'when not to use' is necessary.

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