open_cdp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool does not produce an on-chain execution but 'builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing', which is critical safety-relevant behavior. This exceeds what the name or schema alone would communicate.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the key behavioral detail after an em dash. Every word earns its place; there is no padding or repetition.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what action is performed, the collateral requirement, and what the caller receives (unsigned CBOR hex transaction for signing). Combined with the schema, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 describes address, mintAmount, and collateralAmount, giving 75% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the phrase 'with ADA collateral', which the schema already makes explicit. The asset parameter remains only an enum with no additional explanation, but the description does not need to compensate heavily given high schema coverage.

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 action ('Open a new CDP position'), the resource (CDP), and the collateral type (ADA). It also distinguishes the tool's nature by noting it 'builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing', which clearly separates it from on-chain execution tools like close_cdp or mint_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 description gives clear context: use this tool when opening a new CDP position with ADA collateral and when an unsigned client-signed transaction is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when not to use it.

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