getCryptoLoanCommonMaxCollateralAmount

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it is a private endpoint requiring authentication, has a rate limit of 5 requests per UID per time window, returns 0 if withdrawal would cause liquidation, and calculates amounts to keep LTV below the liquidation threshold. These are valuable operational facts not present in the readOnlyHint or openWorldHint annotations.

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 Features, Use Cases, and Important sections, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is slightly repetitive—use cases echo the features and liquidation-prevention phrasing appears multiple times—but overall every section contributes useful context.

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 complexity of LTV-based collateral calculations and the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job covering behavior, edge cases, and limitations. It explains authentication, rate limits, and the zero-return edge case. It does not describe the response structure, but the described behavior is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the result 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 zero description coverage, and the only parameter is 'currency' with no additional details. The description clarifies that the currency refers to the collateral being withdrawn, which adds some meaning, but it does not specify the expected format, supported currency codes, or whether it is crypto or fiat. With a single self-descriptive parameter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Query the maximum amount of collateral that can be redeemed (withdrawn) for a specific currency.' It makes the tool's scope immediately clear and distinguishes it from related loan tools by focusing on collateral withdrawal rather than loanable amounts, position data, or adjustment history.

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?

A dedicated 'Use Cases' section explains when to call the tool: checking safe withdrawal amounts, ensuring sufficient collateral remains after redemption, and preventing liquidation. It gives clear contextual guidance but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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