merge_positions

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical context: 'GASLESS via the relayer', 'DRY-RUN by default', and the need for the operator's relayer key. This goes beyond annotations, highlighting that the tool is a state-changing operation and explaining a default safety mechanism. No contradiction found.

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 a compact block of three sentences, with the core action and key qualifiers (gasless, dry-run) front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly better structured with bullet points. No fluff.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers the main purpose, parameter semantics, and a key default. However, it omits details like what happens on merge (e.g., conversion rate, fees), error cases, or the exact behavior of 'max'. Given the complexity is moderate, it's short of fully complete but not grossly inadequate.

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 must define parameters. It explains 'amount' as being in shares or 'max', and implicitly condition_id is the identifier for the position. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't fully clarify the format of condition_id or how 'max' is determined. Given the low coverage, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 verb 'merge' and the resource 'YES+NO shares back into USDC', and mentions 'GASLESS via the relayer'. It distinguishes from siblings like split_position and redeem_positions, though not explicitly. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the primary action.

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 implies usage when the user wants to merge positions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. It mentions 'DRY-RUN by default' and requires the operator's relayer key, which gives context. However, no exclusion or alternative tools are mentioned, so it's implied but not explicit.

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