Deposit Asset To A Solana Vault

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'deposit' without explaining that this likely executes an on-chain transaction, may be irreversible, requires wallet connectivity/approvals, or what success/failure looks like. Very limited transparency for a financial transaction tool.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It lacks critical context about the deposit process, making it less useful despite its brevity.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not clarify how the amount parameters work together, what the vault represents, or the transactional nature. The description is far from complete given the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the relationship between amountUsd, amountNative, and percentage. The schema itself provides decent descriptions, but the placeholder 'SYSTEM PARAMETER' for requestId is unhelpful and not compensated.

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 action (deposit) and target (vault on Solana/SVM-chain), which distinguishes it from EVM and Sui deposit tools. However, 'certain USD-equivalent asset' is vague and does not specify which asset or how it is determined, slightly impairing clarity.

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?

Usage is implied by the chain name (Solana/SVM), but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over sibling tools like 'evm-deposit-to-vault' or 'sui-deposit-to-vault'. The description does not state prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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