remove_liquidity

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Remove liquidity' and does not mention that it is a state-changing transaction, requires a private key, involves gas costs, or that it may have slippage and irreversibility implications. The privateKey security note exists in the schema, not the description.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of clutter. However, it is perhaps too terse to be maximally useful, but it does not waste words.

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 is a financial mutation operation with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details about the transaction flow, consequences, return format, or handling of the provided private key. A one-sentence description does not adequately prepare an agent to invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but since the schema fully explains each field (tokenA, tokenB, liquidity, privateKey, etc.), a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('liquidity from a DEX trading pair'), clearly identifying the core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'withdraw_lp_tokens' or 'add_liquidity', but the action is distinct enough for most contexts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., having LP tokens, being a liquidity provider). The description simply states the action without contextual direction.

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