fluid_build_lending_deposit_native

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the transaction is unsigned and needs no approval, but it does not mention potential reverts, return format details beyond 'unsigned transaction', or behavior specific to native ETH across supported chains.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the key action and the critical qualification ('No approval needed') efficiently.

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?

The description adequately covers the return value ('unsigned transaction') and the main use case. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could optionally clarify the meaning of 'native ETH' on non-Ethereum chains (e.g., Polygon) and possible failure conditions.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'amount' is ETH in wei and 'ftoken_address' must be an ETH-based fToken, but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Build an unsigned transaction to deposit native ETH into a Fluid fToken lending pool.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'fluid_build_lending_deposit' by specifying 'native ETH' and 'No approval needed.'

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 phrase 'for ETH-based fTokens' and 'No approval needed' convey when this tool is appropriate: for native ETH deposits that do not require an allowance step. It implies the alternative (a regular deposit requiring approval) without naming it explicitly, but the context is clear.

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