get_fiat_deposit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get details', indicating a read operation, but does not disclose any potential side effects, required permissions, error responses, or limits. Minimal 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 extremely brief: one sentence and a parameter line. No wasted words, but it lacks structure beyond the initial purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool but misses opportunities to add value.

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 is a simple fetch by ID and an output schema exists, the description could be minimal but it is still incomplete. It does not explain what 'details' includes, error handling, or how to obtain the deposit_id. With 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description says 'deposit_id: The deposit ID.' which simply restates the parameter name without adding any meaning, format, source, or constraints.

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 retrieves details of a specific fiat deposit, using the verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific fiat deposit'. The word 'specific' distinguishes it from sibling 'get_fiat_deposits' which lists multiple deposits. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling for contrast.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_fiat_deposits' for listing. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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