list_bridge_deposits

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

Without annotations, the description supplies key context: it scopes to the authenticated account, specifies ordering ('newest first'), and highlights a prerequisite ('Requires API credentials'). However, it does not explicitly declare the operation as read-only or discuss error/empty states, which would further aid transparency.

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?

Four concise sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, filters, differentiation, and auth note. Nothing extraneous.

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 list tool with 4 optional params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core aspects (scope, ordering, filters, auth). It could mention pagination or default limit behavior for full completeness, but what's written is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 description restates the filters (chain, asset, status) that are already fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage. It adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, such as default limit or pagination, so it meets the baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' with the specific resource 'cross-chain (bridge) deposits' and scoping to 'authenticated account'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling `list_deposits` by contrasting bridge vs. ledger deposits, which differentiates from the closest alternative.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool `list_deposits` and explains when to use which ('Distinct from... lists the account's ledger deposits'). Also notes authentication requirement as a prerequisite. This provides clear usage guidance.

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