deposit_cdp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool builds an unsigned transaction and does not finalize or submit anything, since signing happens client-side. It could mention more about preconditions or side effects, but the core behavioral trait is well communicated.

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, tightly worded sentence with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the key output detail (unsigned CBOR hex), making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to compensate. It explains the output format (CBOR hex) but does not clarify what the asset parameter represents, how the unsigned transaction should be delivered, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., the CDP must exist and belong to the address). This leaves notable gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'additional ADA collateral' reinforces the amount unit but does not clarify the meaning of the asset enum relative to the CDP, nor does it add detail beyond the existing descriptions for cdpTxHash and cdpOutputIndex.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Deposit additional ADA collateral into a CDP.' It further clarifies the exact nature of the tool by noting it 'builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing,' which distinguishes it from other CDP operations like open_cdp, withdraw_cdp, or close_cdp.

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 'additional ADA collateral' implies the CDP already exists and this tool is for increasing collateral, which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is reasonably clear from the wording.

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