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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the transaction is unsigned, that the server never holds keys or signs, that XNT is wrapped internally, and that holding LP tokens raises the faucet cap. It does not cover failure or slippage behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three concise sentences each earn their place: the action, the security model, and the prerequisite guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent what to pass, why, and what the outcome will be (an unsigned transaction to sign, LP tokens, raised cap). The only minor gap is the exact format of the returned unsigned transaction, but that is strongly implied by 'Build an UNSIGNED transaction.'

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 the input schema already explains the wallet role, the wrapping of XNT, and that APEX is in whole tokens. The description adds little beyond reinforcing the ratio requirement, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a clear verb ('Build') and resource ('UNSIGNED transaction that deposits XNT + APEX into the APEX/XNT pool and mints LP tokens'). It also distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like lp_position and from swap-building tools.

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 concrete preconditions: read current pool depth via lp_position or faucet_metrics first, and deposit roughly in pool ratio. It also points to lp_position for the faucet-cap ladder. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions relative to other build tools, so it is slightly below a 5.

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