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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: 'Per-unit figures are per WHOLE LP token', 'Values are a proportional-share redemption at analytics prices: no slippage, no exit fee', null behavior when data is missing, and the caveat to check before reporting numbers. This is rich, honest disclosure beyond basic 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?

The description is a single moderately sized paragraph, but every sentence contributes necessary detail. It front-loads the primary action, then explains inputs, output semantics, and limitations efficiently. It is slightly dense but remains readable and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has an output schema, but the description independently explains what is returned: USD value, redeemable amount of each underlying, and pool/DEX/STAMM tier. It also addresses edge cases (null when supply/price missing) and limitations (no slippage, no exit fee). This makes the description self-sufficient for an agent to understand inputs, outputs, and caveats without needing to inspect the output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description directly explains both parameters: 'asset id' identifies the LP token, and 'amount' is in 'LP BASE units — what the wallet holds'. It adds crucial context that 'amount' is optional and that per-unit figures are per whole LP token, providing meaning well beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Value a liquidity-provider position.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on LP token valuation, as opposed to swaps, quotes, balances, or watches. The scope is precise and the function's purpose is 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 explicit input requirements ('Give the LP token's asset id... and optionally amount') and sets expectations for the output. It clearly states a key exclusion: 'NOT a market quote', which tells the user when not to use this tool. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool (like get_quote) for market quotes, leaving a slight gap in alternative guidance.

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