fetch_deposits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral context by noting API credentials are required (useful given public siblings like fetch_markets), but it says nothing about pagination behavior, default ordering, rate limits, or result shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the auth caveat; no filler. It is appropriately terse for a one-parameter list tool, though the brevity leaves disambiguation gaps that could have been closed in the same space.

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 read tool this would nearly suffice, but the presence of a near-duplicate sibling ('list_deposits') and no output schema means the description should clarify how this differs and what the records contain. Neither is addressed, leaving the agent unable to confidently choose or interpret results.

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 single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (max 100), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, default, or semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 (List) and resource (deposit history) scoped to the authenticated account, plus the credential requirement. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling 'list_deposits' (and the withdrawals counterparts), so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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?

Provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With a sibling 'list_deposits' that appears functionally equivalent in the same toolset, the absence of any disambiguation guidance is a real selection hazard.

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