get_coin_deposit

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

The description only states 'Get details' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any authorization needs, or what constitutes a valid deposit ID. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide sufficient transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The 'Args:' section is clear, though minimal. It earns a high score for brevity but loses a point for lacking additional helpful structure.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and parameter, but misses contextual details like the expected format of the deposit ID or any side effects. The output schema likely fills in return value details.

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 but only repeats the parameter name 'deposit_id' and says 'The deposit ID.' This adds no meaning beyond the parameter name or title in 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 action 'Get details' and the resource 'specific coin deposit'. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_coin_deposits' (plural), which would list deposits, by indicating this tool retrieves a single 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_coin_deposits) or when not to use it. No context on prerequisites or conditions is provided.

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