add_liquidity

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing that this is a mutating on-chain transaction requiring a private key and incurring gas costs. The description simply states the intent without explaining that user funds are at risk, that a transaction is signed and broadcast, or that slippage can affect the outcome. The schema includes a security note about privateKey, but the description itself adds no behavioral transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence without redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded with the action, making it easy to parse. However, given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, a DeFi transaction), the brevity borders on under-specification, though not enough to lower the score to 3.

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 tool performs an on-chain transaction, but the description omits essential context: what the result is (e.g., transaction hash), what the user should prepare (approvals, balance checks), and network-specific defaults. With no output schema and no annotations, this description leaves the agent without enough information to invoke the tool safely.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter interactions, typical values, or edge cases; it is entirely dependent on the input schema. Thus, it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Add' and resource 'liquidity to a DEX trading pair', making the primary function immediately apparent. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_liquidity_native, which also adds liquidity but with native tokens, so the scope is not fully unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_liquidity_native or remove_liquidity, nor does it mention prerequisites like token approvals, balance checks, or network considerations. It is a single declarative sentence with no procedural or comparative context.

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