setCollateralSwitch

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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action, such as side effects on collateral status, impact on borrowing or positions, or reversibility.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant phrasing; every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

For a two-parameter tool, the description is close to sufficient, but it omits the single-vs-batch routing to setBatchCollateralSwitch and any caveats about the operation's impact. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description alone would not fully inform an agent about when to invoke this tool over its sibling.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'specified coin' to the coin parameter and 'enable or disable' to the collateralSwitch ON/OFF enum, but adds little beyond that. It does not explain coin format, eligible coins, or the nuanced effect of each switch state.

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 the action ('Enable or disable') and the resource ('specified coin as collateral'), making the tool's core purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool setBatchCollateralSwitch, so the single-coin nature is only implied by 'specified coin'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool vs alternatives like setBatchCollateralSwitch. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions mentioned. The only usage signal is the implicit purpose embedded in the description.

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