prepare_compound_supply

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds value by revealing that if an ERC-20 approve is required, it is returned as the outer transaction with the supply in `.next`. This chaining behavior is not obvious from annotations alone. The description does not contradict 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 consists of two well-structured sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately conveys purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral detail. 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?

Given the number of sibling tools and the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete. It does not explain the full return structure (e.g., that the transaction is unsigned or requires signing). The approval handling is mentioned but not elaborated. For a tool preparing a potentially destructive action, more orientation about next steps would be helpful.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions per parameter. The description adds context to the `approvalCap` parameter by explaining that the tool may return an approve transaction, which clarifies the parameter's role. This goes beyond the schema's static descriptions.

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 'Build an unsigned Compound V3 supply transaction (base token or collateral)', specifying the verb 'Build', the resource 'unsigned Compound V3 supply transaction', and the scope. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'prepare_compound_borrow' and 'prepare_compound_withdraw' by naming the specific action (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 implies usage when one wants to supply to Compound V3, and mentions handling of ERC-20 approvals, which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like 'prepare_compound_borrow' or 'prepare_aave_supply'. The guidance is clear but could be more explicit.

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