get_deposit_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description relies on the verb 'Get' to imply a read-only operation. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error behavior, or what the status response contains.

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 single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary; there is no verbosity.

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 simple getter with full schema parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description adequately states the tool's purpose and key identifier. However, it could benefit from mentioning what statuses are returned or how to identify a deposit transfer ID.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by specifying 'fiat deposit', which clarifies the domain of the transfer ID. It does not elaborate on the userId parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'status of a fiat deposit' with a qualifier 'by transfer ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_withdrawal_status and initiate_deposit.

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 implies it should be used to check a deposit's status using its transfer ID, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like get_withdrawal_status or get_transaction_history. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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