agentek-eth

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 it 'Adds more liquidity,' implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose critical traits such as required permissions, gas costs, irreversible effects, or expected response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 DeFi liquidity operation with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent in this 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 0% description coverage, meaning all 6 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning or context for parameters like 'tokenId', 'amount0Desired', or 'slippageTolerance', failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation and leaving the agent without guidance on what these inputs represent.

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 ('Adds more liquidity') and the target resource ('an existing Uniswap V3 position'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'intentDecreaseLiquidity' or 'intentMintPosition', which would require mentioning it's for increasing liquidity in existing positions versus decreasing or creating new ones.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing position), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'intentDecreaseLiquidity' or 'intentMintPosition', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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