add_liquidity_native

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the high-level function without mentioning that this executes an on-chain transaction, requires a private key, applies slippage, or interacts with a DEX. This lacks transparency for a mutating tool.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and directly states the key pairing concept.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, 4 required) and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't mention that this submits a transaction, consumes gas, or produces a tx hash, but the schema's detailed parameter descriptions partially compensate for this gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra value by clarifying 'native token' and giving examples, but it doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 ('Add liquidity') and the specific resource ('with native token (ETH, BNB, MATIC) and another token'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'add_liquidity' by explicitly mentioning native tokens, making the scope obvious.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'with native token' – an agent can infer to use this tool when adding liquidity with ETH/BNB/MATIC rather than a token-token pool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'add_liquidity' or any exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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