Get Instances Customers Wallets Deposits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'newest first' ordering trait, but says nothing about pagination semantics or return shape. Modest value on top of annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero waste, and the ordering detail is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the guidance dimensions above.

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 paginated list endpoint with 8 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and the wallet/payin sibling set, the description is too thin. It omits that results are paginated, what filters exist, and how this differs from related wallet and payin tools.

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 only 50% across 8 parameters, and the description explains none of them — not the required ids, nor the token/status filters, nor the limit/cursor pagination. With low coverage the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters, and it does not.

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?

States the resource ('incoming stablecoin deposits to a managed wallet') and gives ordering ('newest first'), but never uses an explicit verb like 'list' and does not distinguish it from wallet-adjacent siblings such as GetV1InstancesCustomersWalletsYieldTransactions or GetV1InstancesCustomersWalletsById. The intent is inferable from the name but not clearly established in the prose.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or the relationship to the wallet/payins siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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