aave_position_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output metrics and clarifies that a health factor below 1.0 means liquidatable, which is valuable interpretive context. It does not mention potential errors or data sources, but the core behavior is well described.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and concisely lists the key metrics and their interpretation. No extraneous information is present.

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 simple input schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and what the health factor means. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results, though it does not mention edge cases like positions with no collateral.

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% for the single address parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'EVM address of the position owner.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool checks Aave V3 position health on Base, listing specific metrics (health factor, collateral/debt, LTV, liquidation threshold). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like quote_swap or token_risk_snapshot.

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 implies usage for monitoring liquidation risk but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool is mentioned for comparison, so guidance is only implicit.

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