moolah_supply_collateral

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining token-specific behaviors (approval needed for TRC20, direct for TRX). However, it does not disclose return values, side effects, or error conditions, leaving gaps in behavioral 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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action and purpose; the second adds critical conditional guidance. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Covers main use case and token-specific prerequisites adequately for a write tool with good annotations. However, it lacks mention of transaction output, gas implications, or what happens if collateral is already supplied, so not fully complete.

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%, so the description adds context beyond schema: provides an example for amount ('10000' for 10000 TRX) and notes that marketId comes from get_moolah_markets. This aids understanding but does not elaborate on format or constraints beyond 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Supply collateral' and resource 'Moolah market', with the specific purpose of enabling borrowing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_moolah_proxy and moolah_withdraw_collateral by mentioning prerequisites for different token types.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context (to enable borrowing) and conditional guidance: for TRC20, call approve_moolah_proxy first; for TRX, no prior approval. This helps the agent understand prerequisites but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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