fetch_bridge_deposit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behavioral traits: results are scoped to deposits owned by the authenticated account, and API credentials are required. However, it says nothing about error behavior (e.g., not-found vs not-owned deposits), rate limits, or what a successful response contains.

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 the core action, then the ownership scope and auth requirement. Every sentence carries information and there is no padding, though the structure is plain prose rather than a tight single statement.

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-resource read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and auth, which is most of what is needed. It stops short of describing the returned deposit shape or failure modes, leaving a gap an agent might need.

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 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates 'by id' without adding format, prefix, or validity semantics, so it does not go beyond structured data. 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+resource: fetch a single cross-chain (bridge) deposit. The word 'single' implicitly differentiates it from the list-style siblings (fetch_bridge_deposits, list_bridge_deposits), but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'single ... by id' suggests this is the lookup-by-identifier counterpart to the listing tools, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of fetch_bridge_deposits/list_bridge_deposits, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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