tapp_create_stable_pool_and_add_liquidity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals little behavioral information. It implies a write operation (creation and liquidity addition) but doesn't disclose permission requirements, gas costs, irreversible nature, transaction confirmation details, or potential errors. For a complex DeFi operation with financial implications, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a complex financial transaction tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (permissions, costs, irreversibility), doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provides no usage guidance versus siblings, and offers no information about return values or potential errors.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., doesn't explain relationships between tokenAddress and amounts arrays, typical amplification factor ranges, or fee implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create a Stable pool and add initial liquidity'), specifying both the resource type (Stable pool) and the operation (create and add liquidity). It distinguishes from siblings like 'tapp_create_amm_pool_and_add_liquidity' by specifying 'Stable' pool type, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'tapp_create_clmm_pool_and_add_liquidity' beyond the pool type name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., token approvals), when this is appropriate versus using separate create and add-liquidity tools, or any constraints (e.g., minimum liquidity amounts). Sibling tools like 'tapp_add_stable_liquidity' exist for adding liquidity to existing pools, but no comparison is provided.

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