get_internal_deposit_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Get' implying read-only. No details on rate limits, authentication, or consequences of use are provided.

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 extremely concise with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and organizes parameter descriptions clearly with one line each.

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 get tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic functionality and parameter semantics. However, it lacks return value description, example usage, and context within the large sibling set.

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 0%, so the description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining 'coin: Filter by coin (optional)' and 'limit: Number of records (default: 50).' However, the explanations are minimal and do not provide additional constraints or formatting details.

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 internal (off-chain) deposit records,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from 'get_deposit_records' and 'get_internal_transfer_records' by mentioning 'internal' and 'off-chain,' but lacks explicit differentiation from siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_deposit_records'.

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