create_deposit

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

Without annotations, the description bears the full burden. It states 'Idempotent' and 'Money operation', implying mutation and safe retry. However, it does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, side effects (what gets created), or error conditions. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 very short (2 sentences), front-loading the primary action. However, the sentence 'Money operation — sandbox with a test key. Idempotent.' is fragmented and mixes tone. It could be restructured for clarity, but overall it is concise with 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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention return values (e.g., invoice ID, status). It also lacks information on prerequisites or post-conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficiently complete.

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 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond the schema. For example, 'method' enum values are not explained, and 'external_user_ref' is only described in the schema. The description only provides the high-level context of a crypto deposit.

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 creates a crypto deposit invoice to top up an end-user balance. The verb 'create' and resource 'deposit invoice' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'confirm_deposit_sandbox', which could confuse agents about the workflow.

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 mentions 'sandbox with a test key', indicating it is for testing environments. This provides context but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'confirm_deposit_sandbox' or production tools. No when-not-to-use information is given.

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