fluid_build_lending_redeem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the transaction is unsigned (no execution) and that shares are burned, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention prerequisites like RPC URL usage or return format, but the disclosed traits are valuable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds a valuable user hint about share semantics. It contains zero 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 transaction builder with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the essential context: what it builds (unsigned transaction), what it redeems (fToken shares), and the key input nuance (shares to burn). The tool's purpose and behavior are adequately conveyed 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 schema already covers 83% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds the crucial semantic that the 'shares' parameter is the input to burn rather than the output asset amount, clarifying input/output relationships beyond the schema. This additional nuance justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 builds an unsigned transaction to redeem fToken shares for underlying assets, using specific verbs and resources. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the redeem action and the share-burning mechanic, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 that this tool is used when redeeming fToken shares for underlying assets, which is a distinct operation from minting or depositing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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