prepare_marginfi_repay

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds behavioral context: it builds an unsigned transaction (not executing it), mentions clearing the balance slot on repayAll, and notes blind-sign on Ledger. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 very concise: two sentences plus essential notes on prerequisites and blind-sign. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information.

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 like prerequisites and special behavior, but it does not describe the return value (expected to be an unsigned transaction object). Since there is no output schema, this omission leaves some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the tool family.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that `repayAll` clears the balance slot, that `symbol` resolves to mint with internal SOL handling, and that exactly one of `symbol` or `mint` is required. This adds value beyond the schema's 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Build an unsigned MarginFi REPAY tx') and resource ('outstanding debt in the named bank'). It distinguishes from siblings like prepare_marginfi_borrow and prepare_marginfi_supply by referencing prerequisites and the specific repay action.

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 explicit guidance for the `repayAll` parameter and mentions prerequisites (durable nonce and init steps) referencing a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or specify alternatives for scenarios where there is no debt.

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