deposit_collateral

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 auth requirement ('Requires API credentials') and the real-consequence nature ('moves REAL collateral on the account'). It omits reversibility, confirmation/limits, and any error behavior, so it falls short of full coverage but adds meaningful non-obvious context.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the deprecation warning the agent needs most, then scope, parameter constraint, auth, and risk. Zero filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, deprecation, and risk. It stops short of describing what the resulting collateral/balance state looks like or failure modes, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents `amount` as a positive decimal string (> 0). The description's 'positive decimal string' restates that constraint without adding format, precision, or unit detail beyond the schema, 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 the specific verb and resource (deposit USDX collateral into the authenticated account) and immediately flags itself as deprecated, redirecting to the sibling `deposit`. An agent can distinguish it from `create_deposit`, `submit_deposit`, and `deposit` without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use it ('Deprecated: use `deposit`') and names the replacement tool. That is exactly the when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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