prepare_compound_repay

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, aligning with the repay action. The description adds context: it includes an approval step if needed and encodes as supply baseToken. No contradictions 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence adds crucial usage detail and parameter tips without extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a transaction preparation tool with no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers purpose, key parameters, and a usage note. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though some might want more detail on return format.

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 the description adds meaning beyond the schema: amount is human-readable decimal, approvalCap options ('unlimited', 'exact', decimal string) are explained, and 'max' for full repay is highlighted. This aids parameter understanding.

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 tool builds an unsigned Compound V3 repay transaction, encoding supply against borrow, with an optional approve step. It specifies the verb 'prepare' and resource 'Compound repay', distinguishing it from sibling tools like prepare_compound_borrow and prepare_compound_supply.

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 a key usage tip: pass 'max' for a full repay. It implies use when repaying a borrow, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. Given the sibling tools for compound, the guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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