create_bridge_deposit_address

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

The description adds important behavioral details: idempotency (repeated calls return same address) and the effect of sending assets (credits the account). It also notes credential requirements. However, with no annotations, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like creation on first call or any rate limits, which would be useful.

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 (three sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value - idempotency and credential requirements are relevant. It could be trimmed slightly, but it's well-structured.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and idempotency. It lacks details about possible creation side effects or error conditions, but given simplicityholistically, it's adequately complete.

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 schema already documents the chain parameter. The description adds a hint to use get_bridge_assets for supported chains, which is helpful. But it doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets or creates a cross-chain deposit address, specifying the resource (deposit address) and the verb (get-or-create), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_bridge_deposit_addresses and get_deposit_target by scoping to the authenticated account and a specific chain.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use (to obtain a deposit address for receiving assets) and explicitly mentions idempotency per (account, chain). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives like get_deposit_target, leaving some ambiguity.

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