postCryptoLoanCommonMaxLoan

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

The description discloses auth requirements, rate limits, VIP-level quota considerations, existing borrowed amounts, real-time collateral ratios, and the return behavior when collateral is insufficient or quota is exhausted. These details go well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations and give the agent a solid understanding of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 bold headings and bullet points, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is slightly repetitive—features such as VIP-level quota and existing borrowed amounts are restated in the 'Important' section—but overall the structure aids scanning and comprehension.

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 authentication, rate limiting, key calculation inputs, and return behavior, which is strong for a read-only calculation endpoint with no output schema. It lacks an exact response shape and detailed error cases, but enough context is provided for an agent to invoke it appropriately and interpret 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?

The description references 'specific currency' and 'collateral list' in the context of the calculation, giving some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not fully explain parameter semantics such as which currency is the loan currency, the expected format of amounts, or the relationship between the top-level currency and the nested ccy fields. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 opens with a precise statement: 'Calculate the maximum amount that can be borrowed for a specific currency based on provided collateral.' It clearly identifies the action (calculate), the resource (max loan for a currency), and the inputs (collateral). It also distinguishes itself from related siblings like getCryptoLoanCommonMaxCollateralAmount by focusing on the borrowable amount rather than collateral amount.

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 concrete use cases: checking borrow capacity before creating a loan, validating collateral sufficiency, comparing collateral combinations, and planning allocation. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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