nanopay_deposit

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses 'This is an on-chain transaction,' which conveys key behavioral traits like network confirmation and likely fees. However, it does not mention approval requirements, reversibility, or failure conditions, leaving some important behavior undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word adds value. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is mostly sufficient: it gives the operation, the on-chain nature, and a key consequence. It could mention post-deposit steps (e.g., whether activation is required) but is not critically incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the 'amount' parameter at all. It only says 'USDC' in the purpose, leaving units, precision, and any constraints to be inferred. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 the action: 'Deposit USDC from the agent's main wallet into the nanopayment Gateway.' It specifies the verb, resource, source, and destination, and distinguishes from siblings like nanopay_withdraw by the direction of funds.

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 implies the use case by stating 'After depositing, nanopayments are gas-free,' which tells when this tool is beneficial. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use nanopay_withdraw to withdraw'), so it falls short of full guidance.

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