sbtc_deposit_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It names the data source (Emily API) but says nothing about what states are returned (pending/confirmed/failed), latency, or behavior for an unknown or non-deposit txid. For a status lookup with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded. The second sentence is a cross-sell tip that adds no information about this tool and dilutes an otherwise one-line definition.

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 and no annotations, the description should tell the agent what a status result looks like and how to interpret it. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to judge success versus an unknown/failed deposit from the description alone.

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 txid and vout are already documented including the default for vout. The description adds no format hints (e.g., endianness of the txid, what vout identifies), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the status of an sBTC deposit transaction') and names the upstream source (Emily API). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the close sibling sbtc_get_deposit_info, which reads as another way to look up deposit data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus sbtc_get_deposit_info, sbtc_withdrawal_status, or get_transaction_status. The only redirect offered is a promotional tip toward earning_opportunities, which is unrelated to disambiguating the tool.

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