Deposit Flows

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context: the Solana path is keyless, EVM paths depend on RPC configuration, and the result includes hourly buckets and chain breakdowns. It does not discuss rate limits, but the readOnlyHint covers the main safety concern.

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 dense but efficiently structured, front-loading the purpose and following with configuration-dependent details, parameter options, and an example. Some internal jargon like 'D4 sub-block' adds parsing cost, but overall it 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?

For a multi-chain data-fetching tool, the description covers data sources, configuration prerequisites, parameter constraints, and the presence of aggregate stats. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need to be spelled out fully; the main remaining gap is the precise role of the limit parameter.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It fully documents chain_filter with allowed values and default 'all', and gives a limit example. However, limit's exact meaning—whether it caps flows, buckets, or per-chain results—is never explicitly stated.

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 identifies the tool as fetching vault deposit flows from Solana and EVM chains, with a specific data source and an additional deposit_stats component. It is easily distinguished from the market-oriented sibling tools.

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?

The description states when EVM chain data is available (when ASTER_EVM_RPC_URL* is configured), defines the chain_filter options, and gives a call example. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but none of the siblings overlap with deposit flows.

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