redeem_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 clearly discloses that the tool builds an unsigned transaction in CBOR hex and explains the maximum-redemption behavior. It stops short of stating what the tool does not do, such as submitting the transaction or enforcing ownership checks, but the client-side signing framing provides strong transparency for the core behavior.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the tool's purpose and output type, then adds the one usage tip that matters for correct invocation. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output format (CBOR hex), and the critical max-redemption usage detail, which is enough for a 5-parameter tool with self-explanatory schema fields. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly saying the transaction is not submitted on-chain, but 'for client-side signing' already conveys that.

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 most parameters (80% coverage), including the tip to pass the total minted amount for maximum redemption. The description restates that tip but does not add meaningful meaning beyond the structured schema, so it neither strongly compensates for gaps nor introduces confusion.

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 ('Redeem iAssets from a CDP') and clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by explaining that it builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing rather than directly executing on-chain. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 useful context that this tool produces a client-side signing payload, which implies it is for offline/unsigned transaction construction rather than submission. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related CDP mutation tools like burn_cdp, close_cdp, or withdraw_cdp, nor does it name alternatives.

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