Derive MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating 'Requires authentication,' which is a critical behavioral trait not covered elsewhere. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by page parameters but not explained), error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no output 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?

The description is extremely concise with just two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the tool's function, and the second provides essential authentication context. There's no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers authentication needs but omits critical context like response structure, pagination behavior, error handling, and how it differs from sibling history tools. While concise, it leaves too many operational questions unanswered for effective agent use.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., timestamp ranges) or provide usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get deposit history with transaction hashes and statuses,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_balance or get_withdrawal_history by focusing on deposit transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_funding_history or get_trade_history, which might overlap in financial contexts.

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 mentions 'Requires authentication,' but this is a prerequisite rather than usage context. There's no indication of when to choose this over similar history tools like get_funding_history or get_withdrawal_history, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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