Aerodrome voting position

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: when no tokenIds are passed it falls back to configured token IDs, and it discloses the breadth of returned data.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste, the primary read action front-loaded and the fallback behavior stated second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. A brief note on whether results require a wallet/address context or how multiple token IDs aggregate would make it fully complete.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the tokenIds list is optional and defaults to a configured set when omitted. That defaulting behavior is real semantic value beyond the schema's 'Optional' label.

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 ('Read') and a well-scoped resource (veNFT voting position), then enumerates the exact data returned: voting power, pool allocations, pool weight shares, gauge liveness, and epoch timing. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wallet_rewards or protocol_status, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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 implies when the tool applies (checking a veNFT's voting state) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives versus the other aerodrome_* tools. The only actionable direction is the fallback rule about configured token IDs, which is usage-adjacent but not a selection criterion.

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