getLPPositionList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: real-time valuation, position details such as staked amount/current value/earned rewards/APY, and the suggestion to poll after stake/redeem to confirm updates. This is meaningful beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 first paragraph is well front-loaded, but the 'Agent hint' paragraph repeats almost the exact same guidance: show LP positions, use after stake/redeem to confirm, and avoid pool info in favor of getLPPoolInfo. The duplication adds noise and violates the 'every sentence earns its place' standard.

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 zero-parameter, read-only query tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the purpose, the returned fields, the primary use cases, and the key sibling to avoid. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema already shows an empty properties object, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Because 0 params gets a baseline of 4, and the description also clarifies that the tool operates on 'the user's' positions rather than requiring an explicit user or address parameter, this is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Query the user's liquidity pool positions' — and clearly states what is returned: staked amount, current value, earned rewards, and APY. It also explicitly differentiates this from getLPPoolInfo by saying 'Do NOT use this endpoint to get pool information — use getLPPoolInfo instead.'

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 when-to-use guidance: show users their LP portfolio, or confirm result after executeLPStake/executeLPRedeem. It also gives an explicit exclusion and names the correct alternative tool, getLPPoolInfo, so an agent can decide between siblings with no ambiguity.

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