Raydium-pools Remove Liquidity

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations, which already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. It does not disclose potential consequences (e.g., loss of liquidity position, fees, slippage), required permissions, or side effects. The minimal text fails to enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 concise (two sentences) but the second sentence introduces unrelated SAP context that may distract or confuse the agent. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the extraneous detail reduces efficiency. It could be more focused on the tool's operation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, optional fields like lpAmount, percentage, positionNft) and the existence of an output schema, the description lacks important context. It does not explain parameter interdependencies (e.g., either lpAmount or percentage may be required) or mention return values. Missing guidance on prerequisites (e.g., need to have liquidity tokens).

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly described (e.g., 'Solana public key (base58)', 'Raw token amount (smallest unit)'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, making the score at baseline. The schema itself provides adequate semantic clarity.

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 ('Remove liquidity from a Raydium pool') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like raydium-pools_addLiquidity or other Raydium pool management tools, which would require an agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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., addLiquidity, createCPMM). The SAP MCP context note is about unrelated tools for agent registration and does not help in deciding when to perform liquidity removal. No explicit when/when-not or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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