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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive) by disclosing the 15-second per-wallet cache, the 1-unit cost, malformed-address refusal, and empty-list behavior for wallets with no Earn history. This is actionable behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then uses labeled Returns/Behavior/Errors segments. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 fully documents the return shape (address, positions[] fields, empty list), behavior, and errors. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret the call correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents 'address'. The description adds that a malformed address is refused, which enriches the parameter's expected semantics beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (reads) and resource (Uniswap v4 positions opened through Earn) and explicitly frames the legacy nature of the product. It distinguishes itself from siblings like my_ladders by naming what it is not for.

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?

Explicitly says to use it only for wallets known to have used Earn, and routes the agent to my_ladders for current positions and plan_build/plan_ladder for providing liquidity. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all present.

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