getCryptoLoanCommonPosition

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses authentication requirements, a UID-based rate limit, empty-position behavior, real-time USD pricing, and the flexible/fixed debt split. This is rich operational context with no contradiction to the 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-organized with Features, Use Cases, and Important sections, and the main action is front-loaded. It is slightly redundant ('Separate flexible and fixed-term debt information' appears in both Features and Important), but overall it earns its length.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description still conveys the principal return content (LTV, debt, collateral, supply breakdowns) and key behaviors (empty position, real-time USD values, rate limit, authentication). Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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 input schema has zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not mislead about inputs and correctly implies no parameters are needed.

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 opening sentence names a specific action (Query) and resource ('user's current crypto loan position'), and the feature bullets enumerate distinct metrics (LTV, total debt, collateral, supply breakdowns). This makes it identifiable among crypto-loan siblings such as getCryptoLoanFixedSupplyContractInfo, even though no sibling is named.

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 gives concrete conditions: monitor LTV ratio, view total debt, track borrowing across currencies, review collateral distribution, check lending positions, and assess portfolio health. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of the top score.

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