queryInternalDepositRecords

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the API key types allowed, the 30-day window with a default, and the numeric status filter meanings. It does not disclose pagination or return format, but the added constraints are genuinely useful.

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 compact and structured: a clear one-sentence scope statement followed by three bullets with specific constraints. Each bullet earns its place, there is no filler, and the most important disambiguation ('not on blockchain') is front-loaded.

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?

With 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description leaves important gaps. It does not explain pagination via `cursor` and `limit`, the meaning of `coin` or `txID`, or what the response contains. An agent would still be uncertain how to handle paginated results or interpret the returned data, making the definition incomplete for a complex query tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain `status` values and start/end time window behavior. However, it leaves `coin`, `txID`, `limit`, and `cursor` without any description. `limit` is partially covered by schema min/max/default, but the compensation is incomplete overall.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Query deposit records occurring within the Bybit platform.' The explicit contrast 'not on blockchain' clearly distinguishes it from on-chain deposit queries and from sibling tools like queryDepositRecords or querySubMemberDepositRecords. The scope is unambiguous.

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 operational context: access requires a Master or Sub Member API key, the time window is max 30 days and defaults to last 30 days, and the status filter values are explained. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when to use this one instead of queryDepositRecords/querySubMemberDepositRecords. The 'not on blockchain' phrasing implies the boundary but does not make it explicit.

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