addLiquidity

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that this commits real assets, imposes a rate limit (5 req/s), and explains idempotency via orderLinkId. Does not detail failure modes or return values, but for a financial mutation tool, the 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?

The description is well-structured with bullet points and clear sections (parameter rules, rate limit, agent hint). Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main action, conditional logic, rate limit, and a critical safety warning. Missing details on productId and leverage, and no return value description, but overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly with user confirmation.

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 description must compensate. It explains conditional requirements for quoteAmount/baseAmount and their associated account types, and orderLinkId's idempotency and length limit. However, leverage is not mentioned at all, and productId lacks explanation despite being required.

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 'Inject funds into a Liquidity Mining pool', specifying the verb (inject) and resource (liquidity mining pool). It distinguishes from siblings like 'removeLiquidity' (opposite action) and 'reinvestLiquidity' (different behavior).

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 conditional parameter requirements (quoteAmount/baseAmount, account types) and an explicit agent hint: must ask user for confirmation before executing, due to committing real assets. This guides when-not-to-use automatically, though alternative tools are not mentioned.

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