claimLiquidityInterest

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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, destructive action; the description adds valuable context by stating the yield's destination (user's default account), forbidding accountType, explaining why positionId is absent, and giving the rate limit. This goes beyond the structured fields. It doesn't state idempotency or reversibility, but the annotations already signal side effects.

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?

One action sentence plus three focused bullets, with the most important call-scope detail first. The rate-limit note is additional useful context and does not bloat the description.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the action, the only parameter, sentinel behavior, destination account, why other fields are unnecessary, and the rate limit. For a single-parameter claim tool this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema only exposes a bare `productId` string with 0% coverage, and the description compensates by documenting the special `-1` sentinel for claiming all products and by explaining that `accountType` and `positionId` are intentionally not required. For a one-parameter tool this fully resolves the semantics that the schema leaves open.

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?

States the exact action ('Claim all available interest'), the resource ('specified product'), and the one-click scope. The productId=-1 bullet further defines the difference between claiming one product and all products, which clearly differentiates it from sibling liquidity-mining tools such as reinvestLiquidity and getLiquidityMiningYieldRecords.

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?

Use case is implied by the verb and domain: an agent should call this when the user's goal is to claim accrued interest from a liquidity-mining product. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as reinvestLiquidity for compounding, so the routing guidance is only implicit. The constraints about default account and absent positionId help shape the call but not the choice of tool.

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