deposit_erc4626

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'no pre-registration needed' but omits critical details such as the need for prior token approval, potential failure modes, gas costs, or whether the operation is atomic. This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second adds context and benefits. Every word contributes meaning without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Despite the straightforward task and complete schema descriptions, the description lacks mention of important context such as the need for prior token approval (a common requirement in ERC-4626 deposits) and what the tool returns or how success is indicated. This is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only briefly restating that the vault address is supplied by the caller. It does not clarify constraints like address format, decimal handling, or amount limits.

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 tool's purpose: depositing assets into any ERC-4626 compliant vault. It lists specific examples (Yearn, Morpho, Beefy) and emphasizes that no pre-registration is needed, which distinguishes it from other deposit tools like deposit_aave or supply_compound.

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 for yield strategies following the tokenized-vault standard but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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