agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is a write operation requiring blockchain interaction, potential gas costs, slippage handling (implied by parameter but not explained), or that it might involve token approvals. This leaves significant gaps for a complex financial tool.

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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., transaction signing, error handling), parameter meanings, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'token0', 'tickLower', 'slippageTolerance', or other 11 parameters mean, their formats (e.g., token addresses as strings, tick values as integers), or how they interact (e.g., fee tiers, liquidity ranges). This is inadequate for such a parameter-rich tool.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('new Uniswap V3 liquidity position'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'intentIncreaseLiquidity' or 'intentDecreaseLiquidity', which also manage liquidity positions, so it misses the highest score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., token approvals, sufficient balances), context (e.g., initial setup vs. adjustments), or compare to related tools like 'intentIncreaseLiquidity' or 'swap', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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