pillar_supply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the risk profile (no leverage, no liquidation risk) and the fund flow (wallet → Zest), but says nothing about prerequisites such as an unlocked wallet or existing sBTC balance, nor about what the call actually submits or returns.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose first, differentiation second, discovery tip last. A little promotional phrasing ('the simplest way to earn') costs a bit of precision but nothing is buried.

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 fund-moving write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what happens on success and what the agent should check afterwards (e.g., pillar_position) and what prerequisites must hold. It covers the 'why' well but leaves the operational 'how' implicit.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that amount is in satoshis and optional. The description adds no units, limits, or defaults beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 (supply), resource (sBTC), source (your Pillar smart wallet), and destination venue (Zest Protocol). It also frames the outcome (earns interest, no leverage, no liquidation risk), which lets an agent distinguish it from pillar_boost at a glance.

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 routes the agent: use this for plain yield, use pillar_boost for leveraged exposure, and points to earning_opportunities for discovery. The remaining gap is that it never distinguishes itself from the very similarly named sibling pillar_direct_supply, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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