deposit_txn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states that transactions are unsigned and returned as base64-encoded for signing via UluWalletMCP, clarifying that this tool does not execute on-chain actions. This is valuable context beyond just the schema, though it doesn't mention permissions or prerequisite balances.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, and output format with no wasted words. Every phrase is informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return value (base64-encoded transactions) and the external signing flow. Given the low complexity and rich input schema, this is fully sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 each parameter already having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the purpose, so it does not elevate above the schema baseline.

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 action ('deposit (supply) tokens') and resource ('DorkFi lending market'), distinguishing it from sibling transaction builders like borrow_txn and withdraw_txn. The verb 'Build unsigned transactions' further clarifies its exact role.

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 clearly implies the use case: when the user wants to deposit or supply tokens, this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to avoid confusion with withdraw, borrow, or repayment tools.

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