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

Adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: transactionBase64 is returned only after builder-side RPC simulation passes, and finalization should only be shown when safeToApprove=true and approvalBlocked=false. It also discloses that hosted builders never receive keypair bytes, which is important for safe agent behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Organized into a focused core behavior sentence followed by structured SAP execution guidance. Every part adds needed information, though the guidance block is somewhat standardized and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Covers the full workflow: builder intent, paid routing, estimation, local finalization, signer boundary, and approval gating. An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation. The agent has enough context to invoke and handle this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter including poolName and collateralToken enums is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Build an unsigned transaction to add liquidity to an Adrena pool.' It clarifies the action's substance — depositing collateral and receiving LP tokens — which distinguishes it from related pool/position tools like sap_adrena_build_remove_liquidity or adrena_addCollateral.

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?

Provides clear operational context: it is a hosted unsigned transaction builder, requires estimating cost first, and must be finalized locally by the signer. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'add liquidity to an Adrena pool' framing makes the intended use clear.

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