list_bridge_deposit_addresses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that this is a read-only operation scoped to the authenticated account and that API credentials are required. However, it doesn't disclose what happens when no deposit addresses exist, whether the output is a plain list or paginated, or any rate-limit/error behavior. Useful but not rich behavioral context.

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?

One sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'List' and zero filler. Every word adds meaning. The only micro-flaw is a slight redundancy ('cross-chain'...'across chains'), which is negligible.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless list operation with no output schema, so the burden for completeness is low. The description adequately covers the purpose and the key prerequisite. It could marginally improve by noting the return behavior (e.g., empty list if none found), but it is complete enough for agents to invoke correctly.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description's clarification that the operation targets the 'authenticated account' pre-empts an authentication parameter question. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate since schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('cross-chain deposit addresses') and precise scoping ('authenticated account', 'across chains'). It clearly distinguishes the purpose from sibling tools like 'list_bridge_deposits' (which lists deposit transactions, not addresses) and 'create_bridge_deposit_address' (creation vs. listing).

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 implies when to use it (to fetch deposit addresses for the authenticated account) and hints at a prerequisite ('Requires API credentials'). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast against related siblings like 'list_bridge_deposits' or 'create_bridge_deposit_address', nor does it state when NOT to use it. Usage is implied but exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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