close_cdp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by clarifying that the tool does not submit the transaction but builds an unsigned CBOR-hex transaction for client-side signing, and that it reclaims collateral. It does not mention fees, prerequisites, or whether additional inputs are needed, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then clarifies the important output format with a dash. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the operation does, what the user must provide at a high level, and what the tool returns (CBOR hex for signing). It does not explain details like repayment of full debt or stability fees, but these are secondary given the schema and clear operation name.

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 description coverage is 75%, and the asset parameter is fully constrained by an enum, so the schema already documents most parameter meaning. The description adds general context about CDPs and collateral but does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific operation: 'Close a CDP and reclaim collateral', and names the exact deliverable: 'builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex)'. This clearly distinguishes it from related CDP siblings like liquidate_cdp, withdraw_cdp, and open_cdp.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose close_cdp versus alternatives such as redeem_cdp, liquidate_cdp, or close_sp_account. The intended use is implied by the name, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent select it confidently.

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