Build a mint-position transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tx is unsigned, amounts are decimal strings (wei), simulation is off by default because minting needs approvals and balances, and that passing simulate=true attempts simulation. It also mentions the return includes the tx and unsigned rlp. This provides significant behavioral context, though it could further describe potential reverts or authorization needs.

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 with only two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds critical details about amounts, simulation, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key behaviors (stale prices, simulation) and references get_pool_state. However, it omits details on tick lower/upper format, fee tier interpretation, token ordering, slippageBps meaning, and return structure beyond 'tx plus unsigned rlp'. This leaves the agent needing additional context for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains amount0Desired and amount1Desired are decimal strings (wei) and simulate is a boolean. However, it does not describe token0, token1, fee, tickLower, tickUpper, recipient, chainId, or slippageBps. Many parameters remain undocumented, leaving gaps for correct usage.

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 'Build an UNSIGNED tx that mints a new Uniswap v3 position.' It specifies the verb (build), resource (unsigned tx), and domain (Uniswap v3 mint). The title reinforces the purpose, and it differentiates from sibling tools like build_close, build_collect, and get_pool_state.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: amounts must be wei strings computed with get_pool_state right before minting to avoid stale prices. It also explains that simulation is off by default and when to pass simulate=true. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly to alternatives like plan_position.

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