Add single-sided liquidity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only or mutating operation (though 'add' suggests mutation), what permissions are required, potential costs like gas fees, slippage risks, or what happens to the provided token. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the core functionality.

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 of DeFi liquidity operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'liquidity' means in this system, what LP tokens are, the implications of staking, or what the tool returns. For a financial transaction tool with 4 parameters, this leaves too many gaps for safe agent use.

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, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate with extra context like token types or liquidity pool mechanics.

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 ('Provide liquidity') and the key constraint ('using only one token'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'strato.swap.add-liquidity' that likely requires multiple tokens. However, it doesn't specify the exact resource or outcome beyond liquidity provision, leaving some ambiguity about what 'liquidity' entails in this 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 implies this tool should be used when providing liquidity with a single token, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'strato.swap.add-liquidity' or other alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, risks, or typical scenarios for single-sided liquidity provision.

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