write.pool.deposit

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

The description explicitly states the tool builds an *unsigned* transaction rather than executing it, which is a critical behavioral detail not captured by annotations. It also mentions the prerequisite approval, adding transparency beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two succinct sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, prerequisites and related tools immediately follow.

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?

Given the complexity of a DeFi deposit transaction and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, prerequisites, and related tools. It could mention the output transaction object, but the output schema likely compensates.

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% with good descriptions. The description adds extra value: an example for 'assets' (e.g., '1000000' = 1 USDC) and typical usage for 'receiver' (the depositor's wallet). This goes beyond the schema.

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 states the tool builds an unsigned deposit transaction into an Arcadia lending tranche (ERC-4626), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like write.pool.redeem by focusing on deposit.

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 provides prerequisites (prior ERC-20 approval) and references write.wallet.approve for that step. It also suggests checking current yield via read.pool.list or read.pool.info. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but offers clear usage context.

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