executeLPRedeem

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns an acknowledgment only, on-chain confirmation takes 10-60 seconds, and dercRatio meaning. It does not detail error handling or idempotency, but the warning about user approval and tracking via getLPOrderList adds sufficient transparency.

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: first sentence defines purpose, then prerequisites, warnings, and agent hints. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. Front-loaded with crucial info, and uses bold for emphasis. Ideal conciseness for the 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?

Given no output schema, minimal schema coverage, and no annotations, the description effectively covers context: prerequisites, post-call tracking, timing, and usage warnings. It lacks explanation of receiveTokenCode and potential errors, but the agent hints and prerequisites fill many gaps. Slightly incomplete but very strong.

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 explain parameters. It explains dercRatio with examples ('0.5' = 50%, '1' = full) but does not describe positionId, poolAddress, or receiveTokenCode. While prerequisites imply positionId/poolAddress come from getLPPositionList, missing explicit definitions reduce clarity.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Execute LP redemption to withdraw liquidity from a pool position.' It specifies the action (execute LP redemption), the resource (pool position), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'executeLPStake' and 'getLPPositionList'. The return of an order number for tracking further clarifies functionality.

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 prerequisites: call getLPPositionList first, display redemption details to user, and obtain explicit confirmation. It warns against direct calls without approval and directs to use getLPOrderList for tracking. This clearly differentiates when to use vs alternatives.

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