prepare_morpho_repay

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

The description discloses that the transaction includes an approval step if needed, adding context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). It also reinforces the idempotent nature noted in annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise with three clear statements. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds relevant details. Every sentence provides value, though the first sentence could be more specific to differentiate from other prepare tools.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required) and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It explains the approval step and amount limitation but does not describe the output (unsigned transaction) or prerequisites (e.g., wallet connection, chain). Without an output schema, some guidance on expected return would improve completeness.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage, the tool description explicitly states 'max is not supported', which directly contradicts the schema's description for the 'amount' parameter that says 'Pass max for full-balance withdraw/repay'. This inconsistency harms clarity and reduces the value added by the description.

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 specific action 'Build an unsigned Morpho Blue repay transaction' and includes a key constraint ('Explicit amount only — max is not supported'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like prepare_morpho_borrow and prepare_morpho_supply by explicitly naming 'repay'.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool (for repay actions) and highlights a critical limitation ('max is not supported'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., when to use prepare_morpho_borrow instead), though the sibling tool names make the distinction obvious.

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