lp_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state 'Read from chain,' which signals a read-only operation, and enumerates the returned data clearly. However, it does not disclose failure modes, stale-data caveats, whether the wallet must already hold LP, or any permission/rate-limit considerations, so it is only moderately transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and packs relevant detail without fluff. Every clause contributes either a semantic detail (pool type, return fields, source) or a disambiguating fact. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a read-only lookup with two well-documented parameters, the description gives a solid inventory of outputs: LP balance, token value, pool share, live price, fee, and depth. It lacks an explicit return shape or edge-case behavior, but the listed outputs and 'Read from chain' suffice for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents wallet and token well. The description adds some context by explaining that the token parameter refers to another token/XNT pool and that APEX is the default, which aligns with and slightly enriches the schema. It does not add substantial new meaning beyond what is already in the schema.

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 what the tool returns: the users LP position in an APEX/XNT or token/XNT pool, including LP balance, token value, pool share, price, fee, and depth. It distinguishes this from related tools like lp_add_build by framing it as a position/read tool rather than a transaction builder. The addition of 'Read from chain' makes the resource and action explicit.

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 the use case: call this when you need a wallet's LP position and pool metrics. It gives context by naming the pool type and data returned, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lp_add_build or holdings, nor does it list any exclusions or prerequisites beyond a wallet.

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