Borrow max

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 states the action ('Borrow') but doesn't explain what this entails—e.g., whether it's a transaction that requires user approval, what the financial implications are (like interest or collateral), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a financial 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 borrowing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, risks, returns, or how it differs from siblings. Given the complexity implied by the tool's context (lending/borrowing in a DeFi system), more completeness is needed to guide safe and correct usage.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could have mentioned implicit dependencies (e.g., user context or asset availability). Given the zero-param baseline, this is a strong score.

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 ('Borrow') and the resource ('maximum available USDST'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'strato.lending.borrow', which appears to be a similar tool without the 'max' qualifier, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one over the other.

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 doesn't mention the sibling 'strato.lending.borrow' or explain the difference between borrowing a specific amount versus the maximum available, nor does it discuss prerequisites or contexts for usage.

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