prepare_aave_supply

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

Annotations indicate the tool is destructive and idempotent. The description adds the key behavior of returning a potentially nested transaction structure, which goes beyond annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes all essential behavioral nuance without superfluous content.

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 of a potential two-step transaction, the description covers the core pattern. It does not detail the return structure beyond `.next`, but combined with annotations (destructive, idempotent), it provides adequate context for an agent.

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%, requiring the description to add meaning to parameters. However, the description does not explain wallet, chain, or asset fields, and only mentions 'ERC-20 approve' indirectly. The 'amount' and 'approvalCap' descriptions are in the schema but not reinforced here.

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 begins with 'Build an unsigned Aave V3 supply transaction' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like prepare_aave_borrow and prepare_aave_withdraw.

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 explains that if an approval is required, it is returned as the outer transaction with the supply embedded in `.next`, and that both must be signed. This provides practical guidance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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