depositWETH

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a write operation ('Deposit') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires user approval (e.g., transaction signing), gas costs, irreversible nature, or typical response format. This is inadequate for a financial transaction tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by defining the tool's purpose.

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 financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., transaction requirements, error cases), doesn't explain the return value, and offers no usage context. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, with both parameters ('chainId', 'amount') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying ETH is deposited and WETH is received, which is already clear from the tool name and description context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ETH'), the target ('into the WETH contract'), and the outcome ('receiving WETH in return'). It uses specific verbs and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'withdrawWETH' by describing the opposite operation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing ETH balance), compare it to similar tools like 'swap' for token conversions, or specify use cases (e.g., wrapping ETH for DeFi protocols).

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