prepare_aave_borrow

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the transaction is unsigned and warning about stable rate deprecation. Annotations already indicate destructiveness and idempotency, but the description clarifies the nature of the operation.

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 concise sentences with essential information front-loaded. No redundant phrases, and every sentence adds value.

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 key aspects: unsigned nature, variable rate, collateral requirement. However, it omits the return format (unsigned transaction) and does not clarify that borrowing creates debt. Overall, adequate given the tool's standard DeFi pattern.

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?

Only the 'amount' parameter has a description in the schema; the description itself does not explain wallet, chain, or asset. The amount description (human-readable, 'max' keyword) is useful but insufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage of 25%.

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 it builds an unsigned Aave V3 borrow transaction, specifying variable rate and noting stable rate deprecation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like prepare_aave_supply and prepare_aave_repay by targeting borrowing specifically.

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 explicitly requires sufficient collateral and indicates stable rate is not usable, providing key usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative actions (e.g., when to use borrow vs supply) or mention post-build steps like signing.

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