getCryptoLoanFixedAvailableInventory

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the exact inventory formula: `min(market available + financial trial (50M), user remaining borrow limit)`, precision behavior ('rounded down'), and the rate requirement (`request rate >= financial borrow rate`). This gives the agent substantial behavioral context for interpreting results correctly.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a tight bulleted list of rules. Every bullet adds meaningful constraint or computation detail; there is no filler or unnecessary 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?

The description covers key computational rules and constraints, but it omits important operational details such as accepted `term` values, any rate format expectations, and the shape of the response. Since there is no output schema, the agent still lacks some information needed to fully validate inputs or interpret the returned value.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for missing parameter details. It explains that currency must be uppercase and correspond to an existing supported coin, and that annualRate must satisfy the financial borrow rate requirement. However, the `term` parameter is never described, leaving its expected format and allowed values unclear.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Query available lending pool inventory for fixed-term loan.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope with 'fixed-term loan,' which distinguishes it from the flexible-loan sibling `getCryptoLoanFlexibleAvailableInventory`, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 operational constraints such as 'Only allows querying coins supported by fixed-term crypto loan' and 'The queried coin must exist,' which imply when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related siblings or mention exclusions beyond coin support.

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