get_lp_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does, not any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, return format, units, or network/DEX defaults. It does not disclose whether the balance is in wei, whether the address must be a wallet or contract, or any potential side effects (though it is likely a read-only getter). The lack of such information is a significant gap.

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 that is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and resource ('LP token balance'). It contains no redundant words and is easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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?

This tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not explain the return value, units, or any caveats about network/DEX selection. For a tool that queries balances, the agent might need to know if decimals are handled, if the balance is returned as a raw integer, or how 'trading pair' maps to token addresses. The lack of such context makes the description insufficient for a complete understanding.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already defines. It reinforces the purpose by mentioning 'trading pair', which maps to tokenA and tokenB, but does not elaborate on formats or relationships. The schema already covers the essential meaning, so no penalty, but also no bonus.

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 tool's function: 'Get LP token balance for a trading pair'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope ('for a trading pair') distinguishes it from generic balance tools like get_token_balance or get_erc20_balance. However, it does not differentiate itself from other LP-related tools such as get_pool_reserves or get_dex_liquidity, which could be seen as similar in context.

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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit usage context, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection among the many DeFi and balance-related siblings.

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