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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses minimum/maximum amounts, automatic bonus application with interpolation rules, returned fields, and the send-from-wallet-then-poll behavior. It does not address account_token or dry_run in prose, but those are covered by the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and limits, then bonus rules and workflow. The bonus anchor table is useful but partially redundant with the instruction to call topup_bonus first, making the description slightly longer than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly lists the returned fields (payment_id, deposit address, amount_crypto) and the exact continuation call. Combined with the schema's dry_run and account_token documentation, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 75%, so the schema already explains amount, dry_run, and account_token; crypto has an enum but is self-explanatory. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Top up your USD balance with crypto.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like topup_bonus (tier lookup) and payment_status (polling) by describing the actual action and its output.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing: 'Call topup_bonus first to see the full tier table' and 'poll payment_status(order_id=payment_id) until status=confirmed.' It lacks a direct contrast with alternative creation tools like create_order, but the intended workflow is clear.

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