withdraw_lp_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It identifies a state-changing action ('Withdraw') but fails to mention that it signs and broadcasts a transaction, requires gas, may impact the user's staking position, or what the response will contain. This is a significant gap for a financial operation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary verb and object. It is efficient and free of fluff, though it sacrifices richer context. It earns a high score for conciseness, but not perfect because under-specification limits its value.

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 transaction-sending tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the expected return value (e.g., transaction hash), the need for private key authorization, or how the network parameter affects execution. The tool's complexity and lack of structured safety info demand more detail.

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%, with each parameter (amount, poolId, network, privateKey, farmContract) having a one-line description. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Withdraw LP tokens') and the target context ('MasterChef-style farming contract'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like stake_lp_tokens, remove_liquidity, and get_lp_balance. The verb and resource are specific and 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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description implies usage (withdrawing LP tokens from a farming contract) but does not distinguish from similar tools like unstake_tokens or remove_liquidity, nor does it mention prerequisites like having previously staked LP tokens.

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