get_curve_positions

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description details exact return values, filtering of zero-balance pools, and the additive expansion strategy. This provides agents with a clear understanding of tool behavior without hidden side effects.

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 front-loaded with core purpose and constraints, then details return values and future plans. While slightly verbose, every sentence serves a purpose. Could be slightly tightened but overall well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description covers return value specifics and filtering behavior adequately. It addresses current scope and future expansions, though it omits error handling or edge cases. Still, it is sufficiently complete for v0.1.

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% and the schema parameter description is already quite detailed, including scope limitations. The main description does not add significant new meaning about the paramter beyond reinforcing the context.

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 retrieves Curve LP positions on Ethereum stable_ng plain pools, specifying return fields (LP token balance, gauge-staked, pending CRV) and filtering behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_lp_positions and get_compound_positions by focusing on a specific protocol and pool type.

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 explicitly defines when to use (Ethereum stable_ng plain pools) and when not to (meta pools rejected). It also outlines future expansions and references a planning document, providing clear context for appropriate invocation.

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