earn_deposit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that deposits earn rewards, returns operation details with type 'deposit', and describes operation statuses (pending, completed, failed). However, it does not mention any potential fees, risks, or irreversibility. Overall, it covers the main behavior but leaves some aspects implicit.

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 relatively concise—two main sentences plus an additional note on operation status and a [PRIVATE] tag. It front-loads the purpose. However, the operation status details could be integrated more succinctly, and the [PRIVATE] tag is unexplained. Overall, it is well-structured but contains a minor extraneous element.

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?

The tool has three required parameters (out of four), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema. The description references related tools (wallet_get_pockets, earn_get_positions) and explains the asynchronous nature. It does not mention edge cases like insufficient funds or potential delays, but for a deposit operation, it provides sufficient context.

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%; all four parameters (pocket_id, symbol, amount, jwt) have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. It only repeats the source of pocket_id. Thus, the description adds marginal value for parameters.

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: 'Deposit funds from Simple Wallet pocket to Earn (Staking).' It also explains the benefit: 'Funds will start earning rewards based on the asset's APY.' This distinguishes it from siblings like earn_withdraw and earn_get_positions.

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 explicitly tells the user to use wallet_get_pockets to find pocket ID and earn_get_positions to see available strategies. It also explains operation statuses. This provides clear when-to-use context and prerequisites.

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