enter_market

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is a safe-to-repeat mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the effect on borrowing capacity and the typical cost (~80,000 energy + ~300 bandwidth). It does not cover potential errors or prerequisites beyond 'supplied assets', but overall adds transparency beyond annotations.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, effect, and cost. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the key behavioral outcome (supply counts toward borrowing capacity) and cost. It could mention that supplying must occur before entering, but that is implied by 'Required before borrowing against supplied assets.' It is sufficiently complete for a tool with two simple parameters.

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%, and the description adds no new information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'market' is a jToken symbol). The example in the schema ('jUSDT', 'jTRX') is sufficient, so the description does not improve parameter semantics.

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 a jToken market as collateral.' It specifies the verb 'enable' and the resource 'jToken market', and distinguishes from sibling tools like exit_market and borrow by noting it is required before borrowing.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Required before borrowing against supplied assets.' It also explains the effect: 'Once entered, your supply in this market counts towards your borrowing capacity.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like exit_market.

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