nt200_deposit_txn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the output is unsigned transactions and describes the transaction structures (payment+app call or axfer+app call). It does not mention side effects or dependencies, but the key behavior is covered.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is minor redundancy between the second and third sentences, and the final note about 'ulujs CONTRACT + abi.nt200' is cryptic, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior but omits practical details like return type, grouping expectations, and prerequisites such as opt-in or balance box requirements. This leaves some gaps for an AI agent.

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. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only reiterating the assetId conditional behavior that the schema already explains.

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 it builds unsigned NT200 deposit transactions, specifying the two modes (network token or ASA) and the transaction sequencing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nt200_withdraw_txn or arc200_transfer_txn.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use each mode ('set assetId for axfer' vs. network token) and notes the deposit precedes an app call. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.

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