getLPPoolInfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-safe nature is known. The description adds the specific data returned (APY, fees, reserves, history) and the intended precondition, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or data freshness. This is adequate but not rich.

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 main capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the workflow guidance is compact. The 'Agent hint' section partly repeats the preceding 'Use this after...' guidance, but it adds the staking use case and parameter provenance, so the slight redundancy does not undermine the structure.

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 simple one-parameter read-only query, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, and where the parameter comes from. With no output schema, the enumerated return fields partially compensate, but the description still does not specify the full response shape or units, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter. It explicitly says poolAddress is required and must come from getLPPoolList, which provides both necessity and provenance. It stops short of format examples or validation rules, so not a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query detailed pool information' and enumerates the content categories (APY breakdown, fees, token reserves, historical performance). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling getLPPoolList by stating it is used after selecting a pool from that list, so the agent can tell list vs. detail apart.

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 gives explicit sequencing guidance: use it after selecting a pool from getLPPoolList and call it before staking to present complete details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the workflow context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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