get_deposit_addressPOST /api/deposit_address blockchain=tron. Address is issued for the authenticated agent only. Always re-fetch before send. Do not cache. USDT TRC-20 only. 24h unfunded hold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the address is issued for the authenticated agent only, warns against caching, and discloses a 24h unfunded hold. This goes well beyond what the structured annotations provide.
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 compact set of six short, directive sentences. Every phrase earns its place: endpoint, blockchain, authentication scoping, re-etch rule, caching prohibition, asset restriction, and hold period. There is zero fluff and the most important operational warnings are highlighted.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers all essential aspects: the HTTP action, the targeted blockchain/asset, the ownership of the address, the re-etch/caching behavior, and the temporary hold. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the fixed blockchain=tron context and clarifies the scope, but since there are no parameters to document, no further semantic detail is needed.
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 names the exact endpoint (POST /api/deposit_address), the target blockchain (tron), and the asset (USDT TRC-20), so the agent knows precisely what this tool does. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like get_balance or get_card_details by the explicit resource and purpose.
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?
It explicitly states the operational rules: always re-etch before send, do not cache, and USDT TRC-20 only. These rules effectively tell the agent when and how to use the tool, and the 'only' provides an exclusion for other assets/chains. No alternatives are needed because no sibling covers this deposit-address function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs: card creation, card detail, top-up, eSIM/gift purchase, KYT initiation, KYT polling, and history are all separated. The KYT family is the main risk area, but the descriptions clearly distinguish check, get, checks, and quote.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case, e.g., list_cards, purchase_gift, topup_card, get_balance. The KYT group is inconsistent—kyt_check, kyt_check_get, kyt_checks, kyt_quote—and set_webhook/rotate_hmac break the pattern slightly, but the overall set remains predictable.
19 tools is above the typical 3-15 sweet spot, but the count is justified by the range of spend rails and supporting operations: cards, eSIM, gift cards, KYT screening, notifications, and webhook management. No tool feels truly redundant, though the KYT cluster adds some bulk.
Core purchase and card workflows are covered: create, topup, details, list, and buy operations exist for cards/eSIM/gifts, plus deposit and KYT screening. However, there is no transaction/spend history, no card freeze or block action, and no explicit purchase status/refund flow, which are notable gaps for a spend-focused server.