bitpin_get_deposit_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses a rate limit (60/min) and the authentication requirement, which are real behavioral facts. However, it omits that this is a read-only operation, says nothing about the return shape, and does not describe pagination behavior despite limit/offset params.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose comes first, then filters, then operational constraints. Efficient and easy to scan.

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 read-only history endpoint with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (deposit history), how to scope it, the rate limit, and auth. The main gap is the undisclosed pagination semantics, which is minor given the documented limit/offset params.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the filter names but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and it references a 'wallet_transfer' filter that does not actually appear among the schema properties, which is mildly misleading.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get deposit history on BitPin'), which clearly distinguishes it from a generic history call. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling bitpin_get_withdrawal_history, but the deposit-vs-withdrawal distinction is carried by the name and resource.

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 listed filters imply when you'd want this tool (to narrow deposit history by currency, network, state), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like bitpin_get_withdrawal_history or bitpin_get_deposit_address. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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