Meteora Remove D L M M Liquidity

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's statement of removing liquidity is consistent but does not add behavioral details beyond the annotations. No mention of side effects, prerequisites, or ownership 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?

The tool purpose is front-loaded in a single concise sentence, but the second sentence about SAP MCP integration is tangential and adds length without aiding tool selection. Could be more focused.

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?

The description is minimally complete for a simple tool: it states the action and resource. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., ownership, position existence), the optional 'percentage' parameter, and potential outcomes. Output schema exists, so return details are not required.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the parameter descriptions are vague (e.g., 'Percentage parameter for...'), and the tool description does not clarify that 'percentage' likely represents the fraction of liquidity to remove. The description adds no extra semantic value.

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 'Remove liquidity from a Meteora DLMM position,' using a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('liquidity from a Meteora DLMM position'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meteora_addDLMMLiquidity and other Meteora pool creation tools.

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 (e.g., meteora_addDLMMLiquidity). The SAP MCP context note is unrelated to selecting between similar liquidity tools.

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