supply_compound

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions it is a supply action to earn yield, but does not disclose that it is a mutative operation requiring prior token approval, potential gas costs, or that it modifies on-chain state. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects.

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 sentences cover purpose, market structure, and chain availability. No redundant or irrelevant information. Front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value.

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 of a supply transaction with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, market specifics, and chains. However, it omits critical context like the need for prior token approval, default gas behavior, and return format. This leaves gaps for an agent executing the action.

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 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning that the USDC market accepts whitelisted collaterals like WETH and WBTC, but the schema already describes asset as an ERC-20 token address. The description does not add significant detail beyond 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 it supplies an asset to Compound V3 (Comet USDC market) to earn yield, specifying the protocol and market. It distinguishes from siblings like deposit_aave and deposit_erc4626 by naming the specific protocol.

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 about the single-asset nature and supported chains, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like Aave or ERC-4626 vaults. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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