Add USDX collateral to the authenticated Nexus Exchange account using a positive decimal amount; requires API credentials and moves real funds.
Deposit USDX collateral into the authenticated account. amount is a positive decimal string. Requires API credentials. This moves REAL collateral on the account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | USDX amount to deposit, as a positive decimal string (> 0). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: API credentials are required, and this moves REAL collateral (a genuine mutation warning). It stops short of saying whether the deposit is immediate or pending, whether it is reversible, or what the account balance looks like afterwards.
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 sentences, front-loaded with identity, followed by parameter and precondition/warning detail. Efficient, though the amount restatement duplicates the schema wording.
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 real-funds mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirement, and the fund-movement warning. It omits the settlement behavior and any link to deposit-target tooling, leaving an agent without a complete picture of what happens after the call.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's restatement of 'positive decimal string' adds no meaning beyond the schema's '(> 0)' constraint.
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 ('Deposit USDX collateral into the authenticated account'), which is clear on its own. However, the sibling list contains several near-identical deposit tools (deposit_collateral, submit_deposit, create_deposit, get_deposit_target) and the description makes no attempt to distinguish this one from them.
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 states a precondition ('Requires API credentials') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over deposit_collateral, submit_deposit, or create_deposit, nor any when-not-to-use condition. An agent facing these sibling names has nothing to route on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.