sbtc_deposit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that a real Bitcoin transaction is broadcast, that sBTC arrives only after confirmation, that the Taproot reclaim path exists with a lock-time fallback for failed deposits, and that the default UTXO policy avoids ordinals (with an explicit warning that includeOrdinals=true can destroy inscriptions). Gaps remain around operational requirements — wallet unlock state, BTC balance/fee implications, and expected confirmation latency — so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome (BTC in, sBTC out), then mechanics, failure handling, and the ordinal warning in descending order of importance — a sensible funnel. The includeOrdinals sentence largely restates the schema's own warning, and the trailing 'Tip' is promotional rather than operational, so there is minor redundancy.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, this covers what an agent needs to decide and act: what happens on chain, what happens on failure, spend-safety defaults, and a next step. Well above the minimum bar for a financial operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an upgrade by tying includeOrdinals to the cardinal-vs-ordinal UTXO tradeoff and its destruction risk, and by linking reclaimLockTime to the failure/reclaim narrative. amount, feeRate, and maxSignerFee are left entirely to the schema, so it does not add value on every parameter.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Deposit BTC to receive sBTC on Stacks L2') and the follow-up clarifies the full mechanic (build, sign, broadcast a Bitcoin tx that mints sBTC). It is unambiguous against sbtc_withdraw/sbtc_transfer, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the competing BTC-deposit sibling styx_deposit, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is clear — you call this when you want sBTC on L2 rather than holding BTC — and it supplies a conditional rule for includeOrdinals (default safe, set true only for advanced users). It also points to earning_opportunities as a follow-up step. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a comparison against styx_deposit, and never states the prerequisite that a funded, unlocked wallet is required.

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