perp_deposit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states the direction and source chain. It omits auth requirements, the cross-chain bridging behavior implied by 'from Arbitrum', irreversibility, minimum amount, and timing — all material for a financial mutation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 financial, state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves the agent without auth expectations, cross-chain mechanics, minimum amount (only in schema), or any indication of what the deposit produces.

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 all six parameters (amount, apiKey, chainId, tokenAddress, walletAddress, sessionPrivateKey) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Deposit), resource (USDC into the HyperLiquid perpetual account), and source chain (from Arbitrum). The direction is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling perp_withdraw, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a session private key and API key are required), and no alternatives or exclusions. A reader must infer that this funds the perp account before trading.

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