pancakeswap-lp-route

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: how the tax is derived (executed trades or on-chain simulation, flagged by transfer_tax.source), why the deepest pool isn't always cheapest, and a stated limitation that it cannot see an owner who hasn't acted yet. That is unusually rich disclosure of both derivation method and blind spots.

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 key point (best route at this size, plus round-trip tax) is front-loaded, but the prose is dense and meandering, with emphatic capitals and a self-referential closing aside about the word 'safety' that could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list what comes back (best route, per-route costs, round trip with/without tax, required slippage). Given the tool's analytic complexity, that is sufficient, though it never specifies the response shape or units.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description still adds meaning by stressing that results are size-dependent ('most AT THIS SIZE'), explaining why the usd parameter matters, and noting the address can pin a pair via a pool address.

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?

It states a specific operation: quoting the best of up to five PancakeSwap pools for a given trade size, plus a round-trip sell-back with transfer tax and slippage. The wording clearly separates it from the other PancakeSwap siblings (fee tiers, position look, range plan) by focusing on pre-swap route selection.

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?

It sets an explicit moment ('about to swap... before signing') and an explicit non-use ('not a safety certificate'), which steers the agent away from treating it as a rug/preflight check. It doesn't name another sibling tool as the alternative, so it stops short of a full routing instruction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, and the description still adds substantial context beyond that: read-only, free, no key required; a measured ~1-hour window rather than annualised figures; the two denominators and why the second is reconstructed from the tick book; cache behaviour with cache.hit and cache.age_seconds within 60 seconds; and partial-failure signalling via tiers_unreadable and comparison_complete.

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?

Purpose and usage routing are front-loaded, followed by methodological detail, which suits a complex metric. It is long but nearly every sentence carries information; a few clauses (e.g. explaining what every interface shows and why distant liquidity earns nothing) could be tightened 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does: both rankings, two denominators, unreadable tiers, comparison_complete, and cache metadata. For a one-parameter analytical tool this is complete enough to call correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the single address parameter already documents the token-vs-pool dual meaning and the 0x+40 hex format. The description restates that choice with a little extra context about comparison scope, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: measures which PancakeSwap fee tier of a pair actually pays liquidity providers, to decide where to place liquidity. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the three sibling liquidity tools (range_plan, position_look, best_route), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (before adding liquidity to a pair), names the alternatives and the conditions that select them (range_plan for the price range once the pool is chosen, position_look for an existing position, best_route for swaps not liquidity). It also tells the agent how to choose between the two input modes: token vs pool address.

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

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, and the description adds real context on top: data is read from the chain, the pool's LP fee share is read from the pool itself, the Flip analysis is a hypothetical ('would change ... if adopted'), the call is free, and a wallet input returns multiple ids. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown or non-existent position id, or any rate/latency limits.

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 output list is front-loaded and each clause names a distinct returned fact, so the length is largely earned. The closing pricing/upsell sentence is the weakest part — slightly promotional and verbose, and it could be trimmed without losing routing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly (range status, edge distance, holdings, BNB value, fees, gas break-even, proposal delta, id list for wallets). Missing only edge-case handling such as what happens with an invalid id or a wallet holding no positions.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description exceeds that by explaining the interaction between the two optional params — a wallet address may resolve to several positions whose ids are returned, while 'position' is a digits-only NFT token id. That multi-result behavior is not inferable from the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Look at any PancakeSwap V3 liquidity position on BNB Chain') and enumerates exactly what the result contains: in-range status, room to each edge, holdings and BNB value, owed fees, gas break-even, and hypothetical Flip-proposal impact. It also draws an explicit boundary against the paid 'DeFi Agent' plan that answers 'what to do about it', so an agent can separate this read tool from the advisory sibling.

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?

Input routing is explicit: supply a position id, or a wallet that holds one, with the multi-position case spelled out. The free-vs-paid split ('What to do about it ... is the paid plan') gives clear context for choosing between this and an advisory call. It stops short of naming sibling tools like pancakeswap_range_plan or saying when this is unnecessary (e.g. for swap routing).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real value: the data source (V3 Swap event carrying active liquidity per trade), the observation window (~1 hour, travels with the answer), and an explicit limitation (no impermanent loss, no forecasting). It does not cover rate limits or failure modes for an invalid/pinned pool address, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but the text runs long for a three-parameter tool and repeats itself: the 'picked a pool, now must pick a range' framing appears again after the sibling-routing sentence. The 'does not model and does not forecast / it replays' contrast is useful but phrased redundantly.

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?

With no output schema, the description still enumerates what comes back (per-width fees, fraction of window in range, count of walk-outs) and flags the missing impermanent-loss dimension against fee maximization. The ~1-hour replay window is disclosed so the agent can frame the answer's scope 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%, so all three parameters (address, quote, capitalUsd) are already documented with defaults and fallback behavior. The description adds only indirect meaning — that position size sets the share of active liquidity and therefore the fees — which the schema also states. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: replay real swaps to compare price range widths for a PancakeSwap V3 position, and names the two outputs (fees earned, time in range). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings pancakeswap_fee_tiers (tier selection) and pancakeswap_position_look (existing positions), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule ('use it after the pool is chosen, pancakeswap_fee_tiers picks the tier') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative ('for a position you already hold use pancakeswap_position_look'). The when-to-use condition is stated twice (pool picked, capital size known), leaving nothing to inference.

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