getCryptoLoanCommonCollateralData

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the endpoint is public (no auth required), supports querying by specific currency or all, and has a rate limit of 1000 requests per time window. It does not mention any destructive behavior, which is appropriate for a read-only query. This goes beyond just stating the operation.

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 well-structured with a header, bullet-point features, and a list of use cases. It is concise, covering all necessary information without unnecessary fluff. Could be slightly more streamlined, but generally efficient.

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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, features, use cases, rate limits, and authentication. It explains what the tool returns conceptually (liquidation order, tiered ratios) but does not detail the response format, which might be acceptable if the API is well-known. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter 'currency' with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that omitting the parameter returns all collateral currencies, while providing a specific currency filters the result. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 queries information about currencies available as collateral. It lists features like querying by specific currency or all, liquidation order, tiered ratios. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getCryptoLoanCommonLoanableData or getTieredCollateralRatio, which could be similar.

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 provides use cases indicating when to use the tool (check collateral eligibility, view liquidation priority, etc.). It includes rate limit info and authentication status. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for specific needs, like if a user needs more detailed ratio data.

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