get_curve_positions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that pools with zero balances are filtered out, and that the tool is read-only with no side effects. It also mentions the tool surface is additive, which is useful behavioral context beyond 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 front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' and key purpose, then provides scope and return details. It is efficient, with each sentence adding value. Slightly long but justified by the need to explain scope limitations.

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 purpose, scope, what is returned, and limitations. It also mentions future expansions, providing a complete picture for an agent to decide to use this 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?

Input schema covers the single parameter 'wallet' with a pattern and description. The description adds context about scope limitations, clarifying that v0.1 only reads Ethereum stable_ng plain pools, which is not present in the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves Curve LP positions on Ethereum stable_ng plain pools, specifying what it returns (LP token balance, gauge-staked balance, pending CRV). It distinguishes from siblings like get_compound_positions by focusing on Curve, and includes scope limitations that differentiate it from broader LP tools.

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 states when to use (Curve LP positions) and when not (only Ethereum mainnet stable_ng plain pools, meta pools rejected). It references a plan document and future expansions, providing clear context for appropriate usage.

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