get_lp_positions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds value by listing returned fields (token pair, amounts, fee tier, etc.), which are not in the schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second lists outputs. Front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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, description adequately explains what is returned. However, it does not mention that wallet is an Ethereum address or that chains is optional. Still reasonably complete for a simple read tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It only mentions 'for a wallet' but does not describe the wallet format or the chains enum. The schema has pattern and enum, but no additional semantics in description.

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?

Description clearly states it fetches all Uniswap V3 liquidity-provider positions for a wallet, with specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'Uniswap V3 liquidity-provider positions'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_compound_positions by naming the protocol.

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?

Implies usage for Uniswap V3 positions, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. However, the protocol name in the description provides clear context for when to select this tool among similar ones.

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