get_deposit_target

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose a critical trait: the server-side implementation is absent and the intended successors are also unserved. That is genuinely useful context an agent could not get elsewhere. It stops short of describing the failure mode (e.g. error vs empty response) or auth requirements, so it is not fully complete.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded, so it is not bloated. The second sentence is convoluted, stacking 'unbuilt,' 'supersede,' and 'deprecated' into one clause, which makes it harder to parse than a tighter statement of non-functionality would be.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema lookup, the description does flag that the tool is non-functional, which is the single most important fact. Yet it never tells the agent which sibling to use instead among the many deposit-related tools, and gives no indication of the return shape, leaving the caller unsure how to proceed.

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 there is a single optional 'asset' parameter already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to the result shape ('address/memo') and adds no syntax or format detail for the asset argument, 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?

The first sentence states a concrete verb and resource: retrieve the on-chain deposit target (address/memo) to fund an account. However, the second sentence immediately undercuts it by declaring the lookup 'remains unbuilt server-side,' so an agent cannot tell whether the tool is currently a working path or dead weight. The result is a defined but muddled purpose.

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?

The description does not state when to use this tool, and the siblings it names (bridge deposit-address tools) are dismissed as deprecated rather than offered as an actionable alternative. The only implicit guidance is a warning that nothing serves this path, leaving the agent with no working alternative surfaced.

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