deposit_txn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool builds unsigned transactions rather than submitting them, and returns base64-encoded output intended for signing via UluWalletMCP. This gives the agent an accurate model of side effects, though it could go further in stating explicitly that nothing is sent on-chain.

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 two sentences, both functional, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent receives ('base64-encoded transactions') and what to do with it ('for signing via UluWalletMCP'). While it omits some finer points such as error behavior or multiple transaction responses, it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation in most cases.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description itself adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the overall deposit intent, so it meets the baseline without needing to compensate.

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 ('Build'), a resource ('unsigned transactions to deposit (supply) tokens into a DorkFi lending market'), and the output format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like withdraw_txn or borrow_txn even without naming them.

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 given about when to use this tool versus its siblings. The agent must infer that deposit_txn is for supplying tokens, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or conditions that would favor another tool such as withdraw_txn or borrow_txn.

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