ramzinex_get_deposits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, pagination, credential requirement, and API endpoint. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or any side effects, which is acceptable for a simple read operation.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, a Persian translation, API mapping, and parameter docs. It is efficient and front-loaded, though slightly longer than necessary.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the input parameters and basic behavior. It does not cover filtering or sorting, but for a paginated list tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, but the description adds clear meaning for all three parameters: limit (with range and default), offset (default), and instance (default behavior). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'List my deposits, paginated (read-only)' and includes a Persian purpose and API endpoint mapping. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like ramzinex_get_currency_deposits or ramzinex_get_deposit, so it loses one point.

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 mentions it is read-only and requires credentials, and hints at pagination usage via limit/offset. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other deposit-related tools or provide exclusion criteria.

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