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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: every state is enumerated with behavioral meaning (held_below_min accumulates and credits as one entry; held_no_fund retries automatically every minute; held_inactive is operator-released), and it asserts 'nothing lost' for each. It also covers auth requirements (bearer or agent key) and the distinction between deposit lag and being flagged. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a read tool.

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 content is valuable but the structure is poor: it is one dense paragraph of state definitions with no front-loading of the states, and duplicated phrasing ('nothing lost' repeated five times). The routing detail (greenlandai.ai/api/v1/agent/me/deposit-status) is buried at the end. It earns its content but not its form.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description instead focuses on state semantics, which is the right call. It covers auth, scoping, and the cross-reference to scanner_cursor_block. It could be more complete on precedence (which state wins if conditions overlap) and on whether the states are mutually exclusive.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating the wallet is 'derived from your credential, never a parameter,' which prevents an agent from inventing a wallet-id argument.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'YOUR OWN USDC-on-Base deposit state.' The parenthetical routing (GET /api/v1/wallet/deposit-status; own wallet only, derived from credential) sharpens scope. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools deposit or deposits, but the 'own wallet only' scope plus the agent-key endpoint overload gives it a distinct identity.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition: 'Sent USDC and see nothing yet? Compare your deposit's Base block to scanner_cursor_block.' This is explicit diagnostic guidance. It does not name sibling deposits/deposit as alternatives for different scopes, so it falls short of a 5.

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