x402_lp_farm_stake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fee ($0.01 USDC), the multi-transaction structure (4-txn group), and the two-step workflow (sign then submit). This is valuable context beyond a simple action, though it doesn't detail side effects or reversibility.

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 dense sentence that packs in fee, operation, transaction list, and workflow. It is concise and information-dense, though the heavy use of technical shorthand may hinder readability for a non-expert. Every part contributes specific detail.

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 description explains the transaction flow and signing requirement well, but it omits the expected outcome or return value, and doesn't mention prerequisites like having LP tokens or prior approvals. For a complex multi-step operation, this is a moderate gap. The presence of siblings adds some contextual context, but the description alone is not 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds the transaction signature 'stakeTokens(uint64,uint64,pay,axfer,pay)' but doesn't map it to named parameters or clarify their roles beyond what schema descriptions already provide. It adds minimal value over 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?

The description clearly indicates the tool stakes LP tokens into a farm, naming the operation 'lp-farm/stake' and breaking down the 4-transaction group. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like unstake and claim, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The technical detail adds specificity but lacks a plain-English statement of the action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unstake or claim. The only instruction is procedural: 'Sign with your own wallet, then call the submit tool.' This does not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool over its siblings.

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