CDP liquidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'liquidate' implies a destructive/mutative operation, the description doesn't specify what happens during liquidation (e.g., collateral seizure, debt repayment, penalties), whether this requires special permissions, potential costs or fees, irreversible consequences, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a financial operation with significant implications, this is inadequate 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?

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. While it may be too brief for adequate tool understanding, from a pure conciseness perspective, it's maximally efficient.

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 financial liquidation tool with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the liquidation process, parameter requirements, expected outcomes, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant external knowledge about CDP systems and liquidation mechanics.

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 0% schema description coverage for all 3 required parameters, the description provides no information about what 'collateralAsset', 'borrower', or 'debtToCover' represent, their expected formats, or how they relate to the liquidation process. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meaning and usage.

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 ('liquidate') and target ('an unhealthy CDP position'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from other CDP tools like 'deposit', 'withdraw', or 'repay' by focusing on liquidation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'strato.lending.liquidate' tool, which appears to serve a similar function in a different context.

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 minimal guidance - it only indicates this tool is for liquidating 'unhealthy' CDP positions. It doesn't explain when to use this versus alternatives like 'strato.lending.liquidate', what constitutes an 'unhealthy' position, prerequisites for liquidation, or any conditions under which liquidation would fail. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool references are provided.

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