deposit_aave

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

With no annotations, the description must fully cover behavior. It mentions earning yield and withdrawability, but lacks details on approvals, fees, slippage, or transaction types. It states the key outcome but omits potential behavioral nuances typical in DeFi.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and yield, second advises a prerequisite. No wasteful words; front-loaded with core action.

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 DeFi context (no output schema, no error handling, no talk of approvals), the description is minimally complete. It covers the essential action and a key prerequisite, but lacks details on return values, gas costs, or typical failure modes.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it mentions 'human-readable units' which is already in the schema).

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: 'Supplies an asset to Aave V3 lending protocol to earn yield.' It specifies the protocol (Aave V3) and the resource (lending pool), distinguishing it from siblings like supply_compound and deposit_erc4626.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Call get_defi_rates first to check current rates.' This guides when to use the tool (after checking rates) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention 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.