Retrieve BTC-to-sBTC deposit history for a Stacks address via Styx, defaulting to the active wallet when no address is provided.
Get BTC→sBTC deposit history for a Stacks address via Styx. Uses the active wallet's Stacks address if no address is provided.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | Stacks address to query. Uses active wallet if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and it discloses that results come via Styx and default to the active wallet when address is omitted. It does not describe pagination, result contents, time-range behavior, pending/failed deposits, or any rate/auth constraints.
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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is tangential to invoking this history tool, but the overall definition remains short and easy to parse.
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 simple one-parameter read tool, the definition covers purpose, data source, and address fallback. Because there is no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about what the returned history contains or how results are shaped; as written it is adequate but incomplete.
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%, and the description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already says: the address is a Stacks address and the active wallet is used when omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the only 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 description states a specific verb and resource: get BTC→sBTC deposit history for a Stacks address via Styx. The word 'history' distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings such as styx_deposit, and the scope is clear without opening the 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?
It explains the default behavior when no address is supplied, which is useful context. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as styx_deposit, sbtc_deposit_status, or sbtc_get_deposit_info, nor does it give any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.