reinvestLiquidity

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

The description mentions a rate limit of 5 req/s, but with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, or side effects like reducing accrued interest.

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 extremely concise at two sentences and includes a useful rate-limit note. However, it could be better structured with explicit sections, but it is not overly verbose.

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 tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the parameters mean or what the response looks like, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the 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%, and the description does not explain any of the three required parameters (productId, orderLinkId, positionId). The agent must guess their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 reinvests accumulated interest into an existing Liquidity Mining position, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like claimLiquidityInterest or addLiquidity, so it is not a 5.

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 does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or trade-offs compared to claiming interest or adding fresh liquidity.

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