Deposits

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already indicate safe, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds context by listing return fields and filter syntax, which aligns with annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Description is extremely concise: three short sentences that front-load purpose, then describe output fields and filter parameters. No extraneous information.

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 tool has 4 parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers return fields and filter syntax well. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (page/size defaults) which the schema describes, so it's slightly incomplete but acceptable.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, but the description adds value by enumerating allowed state values (Pending/Finished/Failed) and clarifying currency code format (e.g., USD,HKD), beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists deposit history for the current account, specifies returned fields (id, amount, currency, status, timestamps), and explains filter parameters for states and currencies. This distinguishes it from siblings like withdrawals or balance tools.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving deposit history but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like withdrawals or other list tools. No usage caveats or exclusions are provided.

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