exit_market

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it fails if undercollateralized, and provides typical energy/cost estimates. This informs the agent of consequences and preconditions.

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?

Three sentences, each adding essential information: action, failure condition, safety tip, and cost. No redundant or wasted words.

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 write operation with safety implications, the description covers the core action, failure mode, precondition, and cost. No output schema is present, but return values are straightforward and need not be detailed.

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 both parameters already well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the tool disables a jToken market as collateral. It uses a specific verb ('disable') and identifies the resource ('jToken market as collateral'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like supply or borrow.

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?

The description explicitly says it will fail if it would cause undercollateralization and advises to check account_summary first. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name the alternative (enter_market) explicitly.

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