prepare_curve_add_liquidity

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it bundles ERC-20 approvals before the action, requires a slippage gate (minLpOut or slippageBps), details approvalCap options, and notes that the transaction is unsigned and v0.1 only supports stable_ng plain pools. This goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) and adds critical context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It covers all necessary aspects in a single dense paragraph. While it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), it avoids fluff and every sentence provides value.

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 does not explain return values but mentions 'unsigned transaction'. It covers inputs, behavior, and prerequisites (get_curve_positions). It is mostly complete, though a note on output structure would be helpful. The complexity is moderate and the annotations provide additional context.

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 description enriches every parameter: explains amounts format (decimal-string array, '0' for skipped, must match N_COINS), slippage options (minLpOut or slippageBps with formula), approvalCap semantics (omit, 'exact', or specific ceiling), and references get_curve_positions for pool discovery. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Build', resource 'unsigned Curve add_liquidity transaction for a stable_ng plain pool', and scope (stable_ng plain pools only). It differentiates from sibling tools like prepare_curve_swap and provides specific constraints, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 (adding liquidity to Curve stable_ng plain pools) and suggests using get_curve_positions to discover valid pools and coin order. It warns against meta pools. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the scope limitation and cross-references provide adequate guidance.

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