Add liquidity to a Uniswap V3 pool

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it mentions the $0.01 USDG fee, that amounts are maximums rather than exact pulls, and that the tool returns a sequence of steps (approvals then mint) that must be broadcast in order. This goes well beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, fee/max behavior, and output flow. It is front-loaded with 'Mints a Uniswap V3 liquidity position' and contains no filler or repetition.

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 DeFi tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: action, cost, amount semantics, and the necessary follow-up (broadcasting steps). It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role and dependencies without needing additional explanation.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds crucial meaning to amountA/amountB by explaining they are maximums and that the contract only pulls what the range needs. It also ties rangePct to the 'custom price range' concept, enriching the schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Mints a Uniswap V3 liquidity position for any token pair on Robinhood Chain, with a custom price range.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like liquidity_remove and liquidity_positions, which handle different actions.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to add liquidity) and gives workflow guidance by explaining that the output is steps to be broadcast via the broadcast tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and the broadcast dependency is a clear usage instruction.

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