getLPPositionList

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It conveys that the tool is a read operation returning current user positions with real-time valuation, and implies it is safe for polling. Lacks explicit mention of auth requirements or rate limits, but these are standard for user-specific queries.

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?

Description is clear and front-loaded with purpose and returns. Some redundancy exists between the second paragraph and the agent hint, but overall length is reasonable and every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers tool behavior and usage. Lists specific return fields, provides use cases, and excludes needing to describe return format in more detail. Could mention pagination or error conditions, but not critical for a simple list query.

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?

No parameters exist (schema is empty, coverage 100%). Description adds no parameter info because none are needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no gap.

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 queries the user's liquidity pool positions with real-time valuation and lists specific return fields (staked amount, current value, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly warning not to use for pool information, directing to getLPPoolInfo.

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 explicit guidance on when to use: showing LP portfolio or after stake/redeem to confirm. Includes a clear 'Do NOT' instruction with alternative tool name (getLPPoolInfo). No additional context needed.

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