get_deposit_addresses

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the address is on Base and supports USDC/stablecoins, but does not specify whether the address changes with each call, any authentication requirements, or that it is a read-only operation. The word 'get' implies non-mutating, but this is not explicit.

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?

A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Get your Base deposit address') and includes necessary context. No extraneous words; every word earns its place.

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, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, network, and supported assets. However, it does not mention whether the address is unique per user or per call, or the expected return format, which would make it more 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds relevant context about purpose and supported assets, but there are no parameters to explain. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the network and asset types.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Base deposit address', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_cards or check_balance by focusing on deposit address retrieval.

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 phrase 'to top up your wallet with USDC (or any supported stablecoin on Base)' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls 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.