moolah_liquidate

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it requires holding and approving a loan token, specifies mutual exclusivity of seizedAssets and repaidShares, and suggests a prior step. This aligns with the tool's destructive nature and provides critical usage constraints.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the main action. Each sentence serves a purpose: action, prerequisites, parameter rule, and recommendation. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the core action, prerequisites, parameter constraints, and a helpful recommendation. It does not describe the return value, but given no output schema, this is acceptable. The overall context is sufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating the mutual exclusivity of seizedAssets and repaidShares and clarifying their roles, which is not fully captured in the schema descriptions. This helps the agent choose correctly.

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's purpose: 'Liquidate an undercollateralized Moolah position.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like moolah_borrow or moolah_repay.

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 necessary prerequisites (must hold loan token and approve via approve_liquidator_token) and recommends using get_moolah_liquidation_quote first. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for the tool's context.

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