getCryptoLoanFixedAvailableInventory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by documenting eligibility restrictions, the exact inventory formula (min(market available + financial trial, user remaining borrow limit)), precision/rounding behavior, and the rate requirement. Minor gaps remain around response shape and error behavior, but the core calculation is clearly disclosed.

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 compact and well-organized: a single scoping sentence followed by focused bullet-point rules. Each bullet adds distinct information, and there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers eligibility, the inventory formula, precision, and rate constraints, which is substantial for a query tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits the response format and the exact accepted values for 'term' and 'annualRate'. These are meaningful gaps for an agent constructing a request and interpreting the result.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'currency' is a coin name that must be uppercase and supported, and that 'annualRate' is the request rate used in the rate check. However, it never explains the accepted format for 'term' or the numeric representation of 'annualRate', leaving important call-construction details unspecified.

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 states a clear action and target: 'Query available lending pool inventory for fixed-term loan.' This distinguishes it from flexible-loan inventory siblings at a high level, but the description does not differentiate it from the near-identical sibling 'queryFixedAvailableInventory'.

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 intended usage is implied by the description: use this to query fixed-term loan available inventory. It also provides domain constraints such as supported coins and uppercase coin names, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'queryFixedAvailableInventory' or 'getCryptoLoanFlexibleAvailableInventory'.

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