get_my_deposits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the UTC semantics of the date inputs, which is useful operational context, but says nothing about pagination, result size, ordering, or auth requirements beyond what annotations give. Adequate given the lower bar set by the 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?

It is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, followed by the Args block. The Args formatting is slightly boilerplate-ish but every line carries real information. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a history-listing tool with two optional filters, the absence of any note about result limits, pagination, or default date range leaves a gap an agent would need to resolve before calling correctly.

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 carry the parameter burden, and it does: both startdate and enddate are explained as optional UTC dates in YYYY-MM-DD or UNIX epoch format, matching the string-typed schema. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema descriptions, though it does not explain date-boundary inclusivity.

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: 'List your AUD deposit history.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_my_withdrawals or get_my_send_receive_history because the resource (AUD deposits) is named. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The optional date range is documented as a parameter but the description never says when to supply it or what happens if it is omitted. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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