Supply collateral

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate that this is a destructive/mutative operation (likely transferring assets), mention authorization needs, rate limits, or potential risks (e.g., liquidation). This omission is severe for a tool involving asset transfers.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's too brief to be fully helpful, bordering on under-specified rather than optimally structured.

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?

Given the complexity (a financial transaction with asset parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It misses essential context like behavioral risks, parameter meanings, and usage scenarios, failing to support safe tool invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'asset' represents (e.g., token symbol, address) or 'amount' (e.g., units, decimals), leaving both parameters undocumented. This is inadequate given the low coverage.

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 'Supply collateral to lending pool' clearly states the action (supply) and target (lending pool), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'supply' entails (e.g., depositing assets as security) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'strato.lending.deposit-liquidity' or 'strato.cdp.deposit', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing approved tokens), exclusions, or related tools like 'strato.lending.withdraw-collateral' for reversal, making it misleadingly simplistic for a financial operation.

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