prepare_aave_repay

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the multi-step transaction structure (approve as outer tx, repay as .next) and the special 'max' amount. Annotations already indicate mutation and destructiveness, so the description complements them well.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior (repay, optional approve, 'max' amount) but lacks explanation of the return format or what happens when no approve is needed. Given the complexity of a multi-step DeFi transaction, it is reasonably complete for the typical use case.

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 40%, and the description adds value for the `amount` parameter (explaining 'max' usage) and indirectly for `approvalCap` via the approve discussion. However, it does not elaborate on `wallet`, `chain`, or `asset` beyond what the schema provides, resulting in only moderate added parameter semantics.

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 ('Build an unsigned Aave V3 repay transaction') with specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like prepare_aave_borrow or prepare_aave_supply.

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 implies usage for repaying Aave V3 debt via the name and action, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides context on handling approvals but lacks explicit exclusions.

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