Build an increase-liquidity transaction

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that the transaction is unsigned, simulation is off by default, and prerequisites (approvals + balances) for simulation. Does not mention error handling or gas estimation, but key behavioral traits are covered.

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, tightly packed with essential information: purpose, parameter format, default behavior, simulation option. No redundant or superfluous text.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter format, default slippage, simulation behavior, and return type (tx plus rlp). Could be more thorough on parameter constraints (e.g., positionId must exist, chainId must be valid), but overall sufficient for basic usage.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that amount0Desired and amount1Desired are decimal strings in wei, and that slippageBps determines mins with a default. However, other parameters like chainId, positionId, and recipient are not described beyond the schema, leaving gaps.

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?

Clearly states it builds an unsigned transaction to add liquidity to an existing Uniswap v3 position. The verb 'build' and resource 'increase-liquidity' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'build_mint' or 'build_close'.

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?

Provides clear context: adds liquidity to an existing position, amounts in wei, mins derived from slippageBps with default 0.5%, simulation off by default. Lacks explicit comparison to siblings or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is sufficiently differentiated.

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