api_tinyman_get_remove_liquidity_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get quote' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it doesn't clarify if this is a simulation, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the quote output entails (e.g., estimated asset amounts). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the quote returns (e.g., asset amounts, fees), potential errors, or how the quote integrates into a broader workflow (e.g., using it before an actual removal). This leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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, providing clear details for all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'singleAssetMode' affects the quote). This meets the baseline score since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get quote') and resource ('removing liquidity from a pool'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_tinyman_get_liquidity_quote' or 'api_tinyman_get_swap_quote', which also involve liquidity operations but for different purposes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing pool tokens) or when this is appropriate compared to other liquidity-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'api_tinyman_get_liquidity_quote' for adding liquidity.

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