build_add_liquidity

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

Correctly discloses that the output is 'unsigned', indicating the tool constructs but does not execute or submit the transaction. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and omits key behavioral context: it does not state that the transaction requires subsequent signing, potential token approval prerequisites, or that the operation is non-destructive/read-only until submission.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero redundancy. However, given the domain complexity (DeFi liquidity operations with 9 parameters and no annotations), the brevity leaves critical workflow context unmentioned, slightly hurting its utility.

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?

Factually complete for a transaction-building tool with full schema coverage, but minimal given the complexity. Lacks explanation of the broader transaction lifecycle, approval requirements, and relationship to sibling tools that would prevent user errors in a multi-step DeFi workflow.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all 9 parameters are adequately documented in the schema itself. The description adds no supplementary parameter semantics (e.g., explaining human-readable vs raw formats, or the relationship between token_a and token_b), warranting the baseline score of 3.

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?

Provides a specific verb (Build) and resource (unsigned add-liquidity transaction) with clear scope (for a token pair). Implicitly distinguishes from siblings like submit_transaction (unsigned vs submitted) and build_remove_liquidity (add vs remove), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

Lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus build_swap or the prerequisite workflow. Critical DeFi context missing: it does not mention that token approvals (via build_approve_token) are typically required before adding liquidity, nor does it explain the build → sign → submit lifecycle implied by 'unsigned'.

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