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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses high-value behavioral traits, including the possible return states (OPEN/PARTIAL/CAUTION) and critical operational costs ($0.30 per call, USDC on Base).

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 definition is maximally concise, front-loading the core function and weaving together the scope, exchanges, status results, and cost into a single, dense, yet logical sentence.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly defines the result taxonomy (OPEN/PARTIAL/CAUTION), which provides necessary contextual completeness for an agent to understand the possible outcomes of the call.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds semantic value by clarifying that the `venues` parameter targets a specific set of exchanges and that the status includes data from the last 30 days, which informs how the inputs should be used.

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 purpose is extremely clear: to check if a coin's deposit or withdrawal status is open. It distinguishes itself by specifying the scope across multiple exchanges (bitget, gate, htx, kucoin) and checking 30-day notices.

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?

While it doesn't list alternatives, it provides strong usage constraints by listing the exact exchanges covered. The user knows this tool is limited to specific venues and types of data (deposit/withdraw status, notices).

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