styx_deposit

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full load and does substantial work: it discloses the five-step internal flow, the wallet-unlock dependency, and that on mainnet ordinal UTXOs are filtered out to protect inscriptions — a non-obvious side effect that affects which UTXOs get spent. It omits irreversibility of the BTC spend, whether the call waits for confirmation, and error behavior, which are notable gaps for a fund-moving tool.

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 verb and resource, then the flow, then constraints — dense and well ordered. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is promotional and unrelated to invoking this tool, which costs it a point on every-sentence-earns-its-place.

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?

Mechanics and constraints are well covered, but there is no output schema and the description never says what the call returns (txid, deposit ID, status object) or whether it returns before or after broadcast confirmation. For a multi-step financial operation with zero annotation coverage, that outcome gap is the missing piece.

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, but the description adds genuinely new constraint information: the minimum deposit floor and the per-pool ceilings (main=300k, aibtc=1M) which materially bound how `amount` and `pool` can be combined. That is meaning the schema does not encode.

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 (deposit), a precise resource conversion (BTC→sBTC), and the protocol (Styx), then enumerates the exact operational flow. That protocol qualifier is what separates it from the similarly named sibling sbtc_deposit, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives real preconditions — unlocked wallet, sufficient BTC balance, minimum 10,000 sats, per-pool caps — which tell the agent when the call can succeed. It never explicitly names the alternative to use when those preconditions fail (e.g. sbtc_deposit or the manual PSBT path), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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