prepare_compound_repay

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: it builds an unsigned transaction (no execution), includes an ERC-20 approve step if needed, and supports 'max' for full repayment. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant information. Each sentence provides critical details: purpose, encoding, approval step, and amount notation. Extremely concise and 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?

Given no output schema and five parameters, the description covers the main behavior, approval step, and the 'max' feature. It lacks details on return format, but for a preparation tool, this is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds semantic value beyond schema: 'encoded as supply(baseToken)', 'includes an approve step if needed', and explains approvalCap parameter (omit for unlimited, 'exact', or specific decimal string). The 'max' usage for amount is also explained.

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?

Description clearly states it builds an unsigned Compound V3 repay transaction, encoded as supply(baseToken) against an outstanding borrow. It distinguishes from other compound actions (borrow, supply, withdraw) by specifying 'repay' and mentions the include of an approve step, making purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (to repay a borrow on Compound V3) and how to use it (pass amount as 'max' for full repay). While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, the context is clear given the sibling tools like prepare_compound_borrow.

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