lock_lp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and covers important behaviors: automatic ERC-20 approval, required DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY, and a fee of 0.001 ETH. It does not mention return values or reversibility, but the disclosed operational details are relevant and useful.

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?

Three concise sentences each deliver distinct value: purpose, handling/requirements, and cost. The description is front-loaded with the action and stays under 30 words.

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 3-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what, where, prerequisites, and cost. It does not explain post-lock verification or edge cases, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and sibling tools.

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 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (token address, amount, duration). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Lock LP tokens'), the target resource ('LPLocker contract on Base'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like withdraw_lp and extend_lock by focusing on the locking operation.

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?

Clear context is provided: it says this handles approval automatically, requires a specific env var, and costs a fee. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, so it lacks full explicit exclusion guidance.

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