redeemFixedTerm

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavioral traits: early redemption results in discounted APY or zero earnings, and positions within a redemption window cannot be redeemed. It mentions the rate limit. However, it does not clarify the actual mutation (position closure/reduction) or output behavior, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 concise: two sentences plus bullet points covering key conditions and rate limit. It front-loads the main action. There is minimal redundancy, though the bullet points could be better integrated. Overall, efficient use of space.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides useful context on eligibility and rate limits but lacks details on return values, error scenarios, and prerequisites. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for an agent to predict outcomes.

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 input schema has three parameters (productId, category, positionId) with no description in the schema. The tool description does not explicitly explain each parameter; it only indirectly relates category to product types mentioned in the notes. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter values without additional context.

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 is for 'early redemption for a fixed term position', which is a specific action on a specific resource. It differentiates from siblings like placeFixedTermOrder (creation) and getFixedTermPosition (query) by focusing on redemption. The notes further clarify product-specific behavior, reinforcing purpose.

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 context on when to use the tool: for early redemption of fixed term positions, with conditions for different product categories (FundPool with allowEarlyRedemption=true, FixedTermSaving if allowed) and a restriction for positions within redemptionLimitDuration. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use, but the eligibility criteria are clear.

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