get_deposit_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool is superseded, legacy, and unbuilt server-side, which is critical. However, it does not describe what happens when the tool is called (e.g., likely error), nor any other behavioral details such as response format or potential failure modes.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a clear directive to use alternatives. Every sentence adds value, with no extraneous information.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for guiding selection, but it falls short in explaining the consequences of invoking an unbuilt tool. It would be more complete if it stated expected behavior (e.g., 'calling this returns an error') or explicitly recommended against use, given it's unbuilt.

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?

The schema already covers the single optional parameter 'asset' with a clear description and example, so the description adds little beyond noting the purpose. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not need to elaborate further.

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 description clearly states the tool returns the on-chain deposit target (address/memo) to fund the account, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('deposit target'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling bridge deposit-address tools by explicitly noting they are preferred and that this is a legacy single-target lookup.

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 explicitly instructs users to prefer the bridge deposit-address tools (`create_bridge_deposit_address` / `list_bridge_deposit_addresses`) over this tool, and clarifies this is a legacy tool. It does not, however, mention when this tool should still be used, if at all, since it remains unbuilt.

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