liquidate_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 builds an unsigned transaction for client-side signing, meaning it does not submit or execute on-chain actions. It also names the stability pool mechanism, providing useful context beyond the schema.

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 sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the crucial implementation detail about building an unsigned CBOR hex transaction. 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the core action, the output format, and the signing workflow. It is adequate for a four-parameter tool, though it could briefly clarify which asset is being liquidated or the relationship between asset and CDP.

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%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add specific parameter-level detail, but it provides enough context to infer that address is the signer and cdpTxHash/cdpOutputIndex identify the CDP UTxO. The asset parameter's role remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 verb ('Liquidate'), a clear resource (undercollateralized CDP), and the exact mechanism (through the stability pool). It further clarifies the deliverable as an unsigned CBOR hex transaction for client-side signing, which distinguishes it from related CDP operations like redeem_cdp or close_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?

The phrase 'Liquidate an undercollateralized CDP' clearly implies the tool should be used when a CDP is undercollateralized and liquidation is desired. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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