pillar_direct_boost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses leverage up to 1.5x, the Zest supply/borrow/re-supply mechanics, agent signing, no browser requirement, and gas sponsorship. It still omits material behavior such as liquidation risk, whether the action is reversible, and any required wallet/key state.

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 front-loaded with the core action and mechanics, and each sentence mostly earns its place. The final tip about earning_opportunities is useful but slightly tangential to invoking this 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?

For a complex leveraged DeFi mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers mechanics and gas well. It remains incomplete on important context: prerequisites for the wallet/key, liquidation implications, and what a successful invocation returns or changes.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description explains the overall leveraged strategy but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a clear verb+resource: creating or increasing a leveraged sBTC position on a Pillar smart wallet, with a specific leverage cap of 1.5x. It distinguishes itself from pillar_direct_supply, but does not explain how it differs from the similarly named pillar_boost sibling, which leaves some ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit usage context and names pillar_direct_supply as the alternative for simple yield without leverage. However, it does not address when to use this versus pillar_boost, nor prerequisites such as whether a Pillar wallet or unlocked key is required.

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