prepare_eigenlayer_deposit

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: notes that the transaction is unsigned and that an ERC-20 approval step is included if needed. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and non-readOnly, but description clarifies the unsigned nature and approval handling.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The main action and a key detail (approval step) are front-loaded. Every sentence is necessary.

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?

Minimal context: does not explain return value (unsigned transaction), error conditions, prerequisites, or how the approval step works. No output schema. For a tool preparing a DeFi deposit, more completeness is needed.

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?

Description does not explain any of the 5 parameters, despite low schema description coverage (40%). The schema has descriptions only for 'amount' and 'approvalCap'; the other three (wallet, strategy, token) remain undocumented. The description fails to add parameter meaning.

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?

Clearly states the tool builds an unsigned EigenLayer deposit transaction and includes an ERC-20 approve step if needed. The specific contract (StrategyManager.depositIntoStrategy) and action are named, distinguishing it from other prepare_* tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prepare_aave_supply or prepare_compound_supply. Usage is implied by the EigenLayer context, but no when-to or when-not-to instructions are provided.

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