auto_compound

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It adds one behavioral detail: 'When enabled, yield is automatically reinvested.' However, it does not state whether this triggers an on-chain transaction, requires specific permissions, costs gas, or is reversible. For a configuration/mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no fluff or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified for a configuration tool. It does not mention whether the action is a transaction, what the return value indicates, prerequisites (e.g., need for USDs balance or wallet connection), or side effects. The simplicity of the tool masks important operational context.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (enabled, autoConvertToUSDs, minConversionAmount), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Configure auto-compound settings for USDs yield.' It specifies the resource (USDs yield) and the action (configure auto-compound), and explains the effect when enabled. This distinguishes it from sibling yield-related read tools like usds_yield_balance or yield_report, which are informational.

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 clear context that this tool is for configuring auto-compound settings, making it obvious it should be used when the user wants to enable/disable auto-compound. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tools are mostly read-only or other configurations.

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