deposit_erc4626

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately states the deposit action and broad applicability but omits behavioral details like required approvals, gas costs, or that shares are minted in return. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, 33 words), front-loaded with the core action, and avoids any unnecessary details.

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 deposit tool with no output schema and sibling tools providing alternative deposit/withdraw actions, the description covers the core purpose but misses prerequisites (e.g., token approval), return behavior (vault shares), and chain ID default (though documented in schema).

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 100% and each parameter has a concise description. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning (e.g., 'vault address supplied by caller'), so value is limited beyond the schema.

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 ('Deposits an asset into any ERC-4626 compliant vault'), names specific protocols (Yearn, Morpho, Beefy), and distinguishes from siblings like deposit_aave and withdraw_erc4626 by emphasizing compliance with the tokenized-vault standard.

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 implies usage context (any ERC-4626 vault, no pre-registration) and is useful for yield strategies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like deposit_aave for non-4626 vaults.

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