postCryptoLoanCommonAdjustLtv

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

No annotations provided, so description covers privacy (authentication required), rate limit (1 per time window per UID), return value (adjustId), and behaviors for add vs remove. Missing details on side effects like fees or impact on loan terms, but overall covers key behavioral traits well.

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?

Well-structured with sections (Features, Use Cases, Important) and bullet points. Some redundancy between Features and Important (both mention add/remove). Generally concise and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, but the description mentions returning an adjustId. Lacks details on error scenarios, response structure, and prerequisites beyond 'no active loans'. Could be more complete for a mutating tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description partially compensates by explaining the 'direction' parameter (1=add, 2=remove). However, it does not elaborate on 'currency' format or 'amount' semantics (e.g., units, precision). Adds value but not fully compensating for missing 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?

Clearly states the tool adjusts collateral for a specific currency to manage LTV ratio. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on LTV adjustment, with explicit features for adding or removing collateral. Verb 'adjust' and resource 'collateral' are specific.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (adding collateral near liquidation, removing excess, rebalancing, risk management) and important notes on direction values, margin requirements, and conditions for removal. Effectively guides when to use the tool and when not to.

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