Add dual-sided liquidity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('provide both tokens') but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention that this is a write/mutation operation (implied by 'add'), potential risks (e.g., impermanent loss, slippage), required permissions, or what happens upon success (e.g., LP token minting). For a financial operation with 4 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise ('Provide both tokens to a pool')—a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is commendable, though it comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity (a DeFi liquidity operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses behavioral traits (e.g., mutation effects, risks), usage context, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for the lack of other structured information, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying dual-token involvement ('both tokens'), which aligns with parameters like 'tokenBAmount' and 'maxTokenAAmount'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 'Provide both tokens to a pool' clearly states the action (provide) and resource (tokens to a pool), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'strato.swap.add-liquidity-single' (which likely adds single-sided liquidity) or 'strato.lending.deposit-liquidity' (which might be for lending pools), leaving room for ambiguity.

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. There are no mentions of prerequisites (e.g., token approvals), comparisons to sibling tools (like 'add-liquidity-single'), or scenarios where this tool is preferred. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly among similar tools.

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