loan_create

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the write/mutation nature is known. The description goes further by disclosing the two-step confirmation flow, the preview-before-execute behavior, and the rationale for amount_type (preventing mathematical mistakes). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that annotations cannot express.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, calculation modes, rationale, return mention, and the two-step confirm protocol. It is front-loaded with the core action and finishes with the privacy/confirmation caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this description covers the critical operational context: what the tool does, how amount_type changes behavior, the preview/confirm flow, and authentication notes via schema. The idempotency_key, user_symbol, and jwt details are already fully documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. An agent has enough to invoke this correctly and safely.

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 every parameter. The description adds value by explaining amount_type in relation to avoiding LTV calculation errors, and by noting the required-conditional relationship (loan_amount vs guarantee_amount). It does not restate every schema description, but the schema already carries that load; the description compensates where it matters most.

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 names a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('loan'), and specifies that cryptocurrency is pledged as collateral to receive loan currency. It also explains the two calculation modes (fixed_collateral vs fixed_loan), making the tool's purpose and scope far clearer than the bare name alone, and distinguishes it from sibling loan tools like loan_get_orders or loan_increase_guarantee.

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 instructs when to call once without confirm=true for a preview and when to call again with confirm=true after user agreement. It also says to use amount_type to avoid manual LTV guessing, which doubles as usage guidance. This is concrete, actionable, and prevents a common error mode.

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