pillar_direct_supply

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses no leverage, no liquidation risk, agent-signing with no browser, and backend-sponsored gas. It does not state failure conditions (e.g., insufficient sBTC, allowance/approval steps), which leaves a modest gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by risk/gas traits and the sibling routing, all in a few tight sentences. The trailing 'Tip' is mildly promotional but earns its place as a discovery pointer.

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 single-parameter supply action with no annotations or output schema, the description covers safety profile, signing model, and gas handling adequately. It omits what to expect on return and how to verify resulting position (there is a pillar_direct_position sibling), a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% with a single well-described sbtcAmount parameter in sats, so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about units, minimums, or validation beyond 'supply sBTC', matching the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: supply sBTC from a Pillar smart wallet into Zest Protocol, with the yield-earning outcome spelled out. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the leveraged sibling pillar_direct_boost, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance is given for the leveraged alternative (pillar_direct_boost) and a pointer to earning_opportunities for discovery. It stops short of addressing the closely-related zest_supply sibling or prerequisites like wallet readiness, but the primary when-to-use condition is clear.

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