vip_stableswap_provide_and_delegate

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive write operation. The description adds the key behavioral trait of combining liquidity provision and delegation in one transaction, but does not elaborate on lock mechanics, auth needs, or consequences.

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?

Single sentence of 17 words, front-loaded with the action, no redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main purpose but omits important context like locking semantics, how releaseTime interacts with delegation, and the significance of '3+ tokens'. Schema fills most gaps, but a more complete description would aid comprehension of this complex tool.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the overall action summary.

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 ('Provide liquidity... lock-delegate') and resource ('stableswap pool (3+ tokens)'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like vip_delegate or general vip_provide_and_delegate by highlighting the pool type and combined 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vip_provide_and_delegate for other pools, or executing separate steps). The description implies applicability to stableswap pools but does not set boundaries or prerequisites.

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