Raydium-pools Add Liquidity

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the pool type specifics but omits critical behavioral traits such as the need for token approvals, slippage tolerance, or failure conditions (e.g., if the pool does not exist).

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 first sentence is concise, but the second sentence is a lengthy, off-topic paragraph about SAP MCP context and other tools, which dilutes the focus. The description could be shortened to the first sentence alone.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a DeFi tool: preconditions (e.g., token approvals, pool existence), error scenarios, or liquidity addition mechanics (e.g., single-sided vs. dual-sided). This leaves significant gaps for an 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on any parameter beyond what the schema already provides, nor does it clarify usage for the enum-based fixedSide parameter or the optional price range parameters.

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 begins with a clear statement of the tool's function: 'Add liquidity to a Raydium pool (CPMM, CLMM, or AMM v4).' This directly identifies the verb (add liquidity), resource (Raydium pool), and scope (specific pool types), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ray-dium-pools_removeLiquidity, createCPMM, etc.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other DEXes or liquidity methods). The SAP MCP context paragraph discusses unrelated tools (sap_* SDK tools) and does not clarify usage scenarios for addLiquidity itself.

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