postCryptoLoanFixedBorrow

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

With no annotations, the description covers important behaviors: private endpoint requiring authentication, rate limit (1 request per time window per UID), partial or full matching based on supply, and need to meet minimum LTV. This is adequate for a creation tool.

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-structured with sections (features, use cases, important) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value; it is concise without being terse.

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?

Given the complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers prerequisites and constraints but lacks details on return values or success/failure indications. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the main parameters (currency, amount, rate, term, collateral) and optional auto-repay, but does not explain 'repayType' or provide detailed semantics for each. This is insufficient for 7 parameters.

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 clearly states it creates a fixed-term borrow order with specified parameters like loan currency, amount, rate, term, and collateral. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'fixed-term' and 'locked interest rates', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 use cases (borrow crypto with fixed rate, pledge multiple currencies, lock in rates for specific terms) and a prerequisite (check borrow-order-quote endpoint first). It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool.

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