fire_reactor

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's effects: collecting LP fees, burning tokens, deepening liquidity, sending 5% upstream, and causing price dislocation. It also notes gas cost and permissionless access, providing sufficient behavioral transparency for safe selection.

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, using 5 short sentences that front-load the core action. Each sentence adds distinct value (mechanism, frequency, cost, consequence), with no superfluous information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool does, its mechanism, preconditions (permissionless, 2-hour interval), cost, and post-action effects (arb opportunity). This is sufficient for an agent to understand when and why to invoke it.

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?

The input schema already describes the only parameter ('reactorAddress') as the reactor contract address. The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, and with 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 fires a reactor and triggers a specific DeFi mechanism (burn+compound). It uses a specific verb ('fire') and resource ('reactor'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unrugable_check_reactor' by focusing on execution rather than inspection.

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 mentions the cooldown period ('every 2 hours'), gas cost, and resulting price dislocation, giving clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the permissionless nature and timing constraint are well-communicated.

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