remove_liquidity_txn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose key traits: it builds an *unsigned* transaction group (no execution/mutation occurs) and returns base64 encoding, plus the external signing dependency. It omits failure behavior and any auth/permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return/signing detail second. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return value (base64 tx group) and the next step (signing via UluWalletMCP), which is what an agent needs to chain calls. Slippage default and units are left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 100%, so all four parameters (sender, lpAmount, slippage, poolAppId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Build unsigned transactions to remove liquidity from a PactFi pool.' The 'remove liquidity' scope is inherently distinct from the sibling add_liquidity_txn and swap_txn, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 implies a workflow step by noting the result is 'for signing via UluWalletMCP,' which tells the agent this is a build-only precursor, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings or what preconditions must hold (pool must exist, LP balance sufficient).

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