prepare_uniswap_v3_rebalance

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond by detailing the exact sequence of operations (decreaseLiquidity, collect, optional burn, mint), slippage applied independently to close and re-deposit phases, approval chaining, and hard refusals. No contradiction 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?

The description is detailed but efficiently packed. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds behavioral specifics. Some sentences are dense but still clear. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., use bullet points for the composition sequence), but overall concise for the complexity.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation's behavior, preconditions, and parameter nuances thoroughly. It explains the transaction flow, slippage handling, and approval needs. However, it does not describe the return type or structure of the unsigned transaction, which could be useful.

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 coverage is 50%, but the description adds meaningful context for key parameters like slippageBps (explains effective 2x tolerance), burnOld (explains default behavior and rationale), and approvalCap (explains options). For parameters without schema descriptions, the tool name and context provide some hints, but more could be added.

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 builds an unsigned Uniswap V3 LP rebalance transaction, moving a position from its current tick range to a new one in a single multicall. It distinguishes from sibling tools like prepare_uniswap_v3_mint or prepare_uniswap_v3_decrease_liquidity by specifying the rebalance operation and the multicall composition.

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 explains when to use this tool (to rebalance a position) and explicitly lists hard refusals: owner mismatch, mis-aligned new ticks, identical new range, zero-liquidity position. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., for simple liquidity adjustments), providing clear usage boundaries.

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