supply_to_lending

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and intent but does not mention that this is a blockchain transaction, that gas fees may apply, that the private key is used to sign, or what happens on success. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb. There is no fluff or redundant information; every word contributes meaning.

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?

This is a DeFi transaction tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description lacks critical context such as return format, transaction confirmation behavior, prerequisite approvals, or supported protocols. For a tool of this complexity, the description is insufficiently 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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, though it does imply 'assets' maps to the asset parameter and 'lending protocol' maps to protocol. It does not go 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 clearly states the action ('Supply/deposit assets'), the target ('a lending protocol'), and the purpose ('to earn interest'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like borrow_from_lending, withdraw_from_lending, and repay_to_lending by specifying the deposit direction.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. It is implied that this tool is for supplying/depositing assets to a lending protocol, but there is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description does not tell the agent when to choose this over related tools like withdraw_from_lending.

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