fluid_build_token_approve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the transaction is unsigned (not sent) and is a prerequisite for deposit/supply, but offers no details about return format, gas implications, or the potentially irreversible nature of the approval. Satisfies minimum transparency but leaves gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a clear usage prerequisite. Every word earns its place; 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?

For a transaction builder with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and prerequisite. It lacks details about return value or edge cases, but these are less critical for an unsigned tx builder. Overall sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely restating the spender types (fToken, vault, DEX pool) already implied by the spender parameter description.

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?

Clearly states it builds an unsigned transaction to approve an ERC20 token for spending by Fluid contracts, specifically mentioning fToken, vault, DEX pool. This distinguishes it from sibling getter and other build tools.

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?

Explicitly says it is required before deposit/supply operations, giving clear context for when to use. Does not list alternative tools or exclusions, but the placement among siblings and the 'required before' phrasing provide sufficient guidance.

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