magicblock deposit

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

The description reveals that the tool only builds an unsigned transaction, not submitting it, and that a builder fee applies. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), which only indicate it is a write operation. The description clarifies the tool's limited scope and dependencies.

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 concise with three sentences, each providing essential information: purpose, workflow, and a warning with fee notice. No unnecessary words, and the most important information about what the tool does is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, 2 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case and workflow. It does not need to explain return values as the output schema handles that. The only minor gap is no mention of default values for optional parameters, but the schema covers those.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: building an unsigned transaction to deposit SPL tokens into an Ephemeral Rollup. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like magicblock_withdraw or spl-token_transfer by specifying the target (Ephemeral Rollup).

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 a clear workflow: use this tool, then follow up with sap_preview_transaction, sap_sign_transaction, and sap_submit_signed_transaction. It also warns against creating local signing scripts. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use this tool, the workflow instructions imply the intended usage context.

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