agentek-eth

intentTransferPosition

Transfer ownership of Uniswap V3 LP NFTs to another address on Ethereum networks. Specify token ID, recipient address, and chain ID.

Instructions

Transfers ownership of a Uniswap V3 LP NFT

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tokenId": "<tokenId>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "chainId": "<chainId>"
    },
    "name": "intentTransferPosition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tokenId`	Yes
`to`	Yes
`chainId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 performs a transfer, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention critical details like required permissions, gas costs, confirmation times, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of transferring an LP NFT (a blockchain write operation), the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving too many gaps for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters (tokenId, to, chainId) are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any information about what these parameters mean, their formats, or examples, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Transfers ownership') and the resource ('Uniswap V3 LP NFT'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'intentTransfer' or 'intentTransferFrom', which also involve transfers, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. With sibling tools like 'intentTransfer' and 'intentTransferFrom' available, there's no indication of the specific context or prerequisites for transferring an LP NFT, leaving usage ambiguous.

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

Deploy Server