getLiquidityMiningPositions

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

The description discloses that amount fields are computed dynamically based on real-time prices and specifies a rate limit of 10 req/s. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe error behavior or response characteristics. The information is useful but incomplete.

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 concise, with two sentences and a rate limit note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it omits essential parameter information and could be more structured. Every sentence earns its place, but the overall brevity leaves gaps.

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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what constitutes a 'position,' how parameters filter results, or what the output contains. An agent would need significant external knowledge to use this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter (productId, baseCoin) is described in the schema. The description does not explain these parameters or how they affect the query. It adds no value beyond the schema structure, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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: 'Query active Liquidity Mining positions for the current user.' It includes a specific verb (query) and resource (positions). However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like getLiquidityMiningOrders or getLiquidityMiningProducts, which reduces clarity in a crowded toolset.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a rate limit, but does not explain use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Sibling tools are numerous but no differentiation is offered.

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