approve_underlying

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses typical cost (~23,000 energy + ~265 bandwidth) and the fact that the call is required before supply/repay. No contradiction with annotations: readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false all align.

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 that concisely convey the purpose, prerequisites, and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 simple approval tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and includes practical details (cost, 'max' usage). It is complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only the note about amount='max' for unlimited approval, which is also in the schema description. The cost information is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is 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?

Description clearly states the action: approve jToken contract to spend underlying TRC20 tokens. It specifies the context (required before supply/repay for TRC20-backed markets, not for jTRX), providing a specific verb and resource with necessary differentiation from siblings like approve_jst_for_voting.

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?

Description explicitly states when to use (before supply/repay for TRC20-backed markets) and when not (not for jTRX). It lacks explicit mention of alternatives but the context is clear given sibling tools like supply and repay. The hint about using 'max' for unlimited approval adds usage guidance.

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