fetch_bridge_deposits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the read semantics ('List'), result ordering ('newest first'), and an auth requirement ('Requires API credentials'). It does not cover pagination/truncation behavior or error conditions, which is the remaining gap for a paginated list endpoint.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the primary purpose plus ordering are front-loaded before the optional filters and the sibling disambiguation. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter, zero-required list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, ordering, auth, and sibling differentiation. The only shortfall is that return contents and pagination limits (`limit` max 100) are left entirely to the schema.

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 all four parameters and both enums are already documented. The description restates the filter values (chain, asset USDC|USDX, status detected|confirming|credited|failed) but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, and never mentions `limit`. 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 ('List ... cross-chain (bridge) deposits') and adds scope detail ('authenticated account's', 'newest first'). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (`fetch_deposits`) and explains the distinction (ledger vs bridge), so an agent can disambiguate without opening either 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 the selection context directly: use this for bridge deposits, not ledger deposits, which is called out by name via `fetch_deposits`. The optional filter dimensions (chain, asset, status) further describe when to narrow results. It also states the prerequisite ('Requires API credentials').

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