Build a close-position transaction

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral aspects: it builds an unsigned transaction (non-executing), removes liquidity, multicalls when needed, returns tx+unsigned rlp+read position, and explains burn and simulate options. It could mention that it does not execute the transaction, but 'unsigned' implies that.

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 at two sentences plus a third for details. Main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return values (tx+rlp+read position). It covers the tool's core functionality, multicall behavior, and optional parameters. However, it omits descriptions for three parameters (chainId, recipient, positionId), leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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 description adds meaning for 2 of 5 parameters (burn, simulate) but does not describe chainId, recipient, or positionId beyond their existence. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more for the undocumented 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 clearly states it builds an unsigned transaction to remove all liquidity and collect everything from a Uniswap v3 position. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_collect (collect fees), build_increase (add liquidity), build_mint (create position), 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 implies usage for closing a position but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional parameters (burn, simulate) but no context for choosing this over sibling tools.

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