get_deposits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the optional symbol filter but does not state what happens when symbol is omitted, whether the result is sorted, or any other behavior. It also fails to explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation, though that is implied by 'history'.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two short clauses that immediately convey the tool's purpose and the optional parameter. Every word adds value, with no wasted or redundant phrasing.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the description is brief, it should still provide enough context for the agent to know when and how to use it. However, it lacks any guidance on use cases, alternatives, or expected behavior, which is especially problematic given the many sibling tools. The description meets the bare minimum but is not complete for effective selection.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention that the 'symbol' parameter is an optional filter, but it does not clarify what constitutes a valid symbol (e.g., crypto ticker, fiat code, case sensitivity) or any default behavior. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 indicates the tool retrieves deposit history for both fiat (EUR) and crypto, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_withdrawals. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'list' or 'get', but 'Deposit history' strongly implies retrieval, making the purpose clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_withdrawals or get_transactions. The description only states what it does, not when it is preferred or when symbol filtering is appropriate. The large sibling list makes this omission noticeable.

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