leverage_cdp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that the tool does not submit a transaction but returns unsigned CBOR hex for client-side signing, a critical operational trait. It does not mention prerequisites like existing ROB positions, but the core non-broadcasting behavior is transparent.

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 the output format second. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully specifies the return value (unsigned CBOR hex) and the client-side signing workflow. It lacks details on preconditions such as holding ROB positions or the leverage math, but the essential user-facing behavior is covered.

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 schema already provides descriptions for address, leverage, and baseCollateral, covering 75% of parameters. The description adds general context about the redemption mechanism but no new per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema contains. The asset parameter remains undocumented but is self-explanatory via its enum.

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 action ('Open a leveraged CDP'), the mechanism ('by redeeming against ROB positions'), and the output ('unsigned transaction (CBOR hex)'). This distinguishes it from siblings like open_cdp and redeem_rob by specifying the leveraged redemption path.

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 the intended use case—opening a leveraged CDP via ROB redemptions—but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as open_cdp or redeem_rob, nor does it state when not to use it. An agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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