api_tinyman_get_liquidity_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get quote', implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not confirm this or add context about rate limits, authentication needs, or what the quote output entails. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get quote for adding liquidity to a pool'. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of liquidity quoting with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the quote's format, potential errors, or how the 'mode' parameter affects the quote, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively in context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions and enums, so the schema provides comprehensive parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions, constraints, or usage examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states the verb 'Get quote' and the resource 'for adding liquidity to a pool', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_tinyman_get_swap_quote' or 'api_tinyman_get_remove_liquidity_quote', which are also quote-related tools in the same domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other Tinyman quote tools or general liquidity management operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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