get_deposit_records

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is limited to parameters and return type, missing crucial behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with a one-line summary followed by explicit Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and 2 optional parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its parameters. However, it lacks detail on the return record structure and scope (e.g., user-specific vs all), but is still fairly complete for a simple retrieval 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'coin' (optional filter) and 'limit' (default 50, max 50). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's plain titles.

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 'Get deposit records' as its purpose, identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like get_broker_sub_deposit_record or get_internal_deposit_records, leaving ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, instead relying solely on the tool name.

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