supply_compound

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses multi-chain support and asset types (USDC base, whitelisted collateral), but omits approval requirements, gas costs, risks, or any return value details. Adequate but incomplete for full transparency.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. First sentence captures core action, second adds market detail, third lists chains. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, asset types, and chain availability. Missing details like the need for token approval, return format (transaction hash?), and protocol-specific nuances. Adequate for typical use but not exhaustive.

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 already covers parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by specifying the USDC market and giving example collateral (WETH, WBTC), and listing supported chains beyond schema's default chain_id. This extra context justifies a score above baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states the action (supply asset), protocol (Compound V3), market (USDC market), and purpose (earn yield). Distinguishes from sibling tools like withdraw_compound and deposit_aave by specifying the exact protocol and market.

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?

Implies when to use (to supply assets to Compound V3) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons with alternatives like deposit_aave or deposit_erc4626. No guidance on prerequisites or potential issues.

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