borrow_from_lending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Borrow assets from a lending protocol' without mentioning that this is a state-changing operation, that it creates debt, that collateral may be required, or what the return value might be. There is no information about interest accrual, liquidation risks, or interacting with specific protocols.

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 very concise—a single sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While extremely minimal, it does not contain any unnecessary words or filler.

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?

For a complex tool with 6 parameters (including privateKey, protocol, network, and interestRateMode), no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain the operation's return value, prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing supply position or collateral), how it interacts with the lending protocol, or any side effects. The schema parameter descriptions help with individual fields but not with the overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (asset, amount, network, protocol, privateKey, interestRateMode) having its own description. Therefore, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Borrow assets from a lending protocol' clearly identifies the specific action (borrow) and resource (assets from a lending protocol). It distinguishes this tool from sibling operations like supply_to_lending, repay_to_lending, and withdraw_from_lending, which are separate actions in the same domain.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., supplying collateral first), when not to use it, or explicitly refer to sibling tools for related operations. Usage is only implied by the verb 'borrow' and the tool name.

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