Deposit Asset To An EVM Vault

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Deposit certain USD-equivalent asset' without mentioning fund movement, reversibility, approval requirements, or side effects. For a financial transaction tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, and scope with a useful chain list. No wasted words.

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 complexity of a deposit transaction, the description is too thin. It omits how amountUsd relates to amountNative, what 'USD-equivalent asset' means, and what the expected outcome is. With no annotations and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context for safe usage.

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 parameter meanings are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantics (e.g., relationship between amountUsd and amountNative), so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states the action clearly: 'Deposit certain USD-equivalent asset to a vault on *Ethereum/EVM chains*' and lists supported networks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like solana-deposit-to-vault (different chain) and evm-withdraw-from-vault (different action).

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 scopes the tool to EVM chains, which provides clear context for when to use it (deposits on Ethereum, Polygon, etc.). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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