create_deposit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the HTTP endpoint, that credentials are required, that the deposit is persisted and listable, and warns that it 'moves REAL collateral on the account'. It does not address idempotency, failure/error behavior, or reversibility, which is the remaining gap for a mutating financial call.

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?

Four compact clauses, each earning its place: purpose+endpoint, sibling differentiation, parameter recap, and the credential/real-collateral warning. The most important caveat is placed last for emphasis without burying the primary action.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, routing, credentials, and side effects. What's missing is confirmation of whether the call is idempotent and what the caller gets back, but the essential decision inputs are present.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's restatement of 'amount is a positive decimal string' and 'asset defaults to USDX' adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Submit a ... deposit ... via the deposits ledger') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `deposit` by noting the deposit is recorded and listable with `fetch_deposits`. An agent can separate this from `deposit`, `deposit_collateral`, and `submit_deposit` without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus the sibling `deposit` (recorded vs unrecorded), and flags the credential prerequisite. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance among the many other deposit-related siblings, but the routing signal is present.

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