list_bridge_deposits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that API credentials are required, that results are ordered newest first, and that the tool is deprecated. It does not mention rate limits, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation notice and replacement tool. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, ordering, filters, sibling distinction, and auth requirement. No redundant or filler content.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers deprecation, replacement, auth, ordering, filters, and sibling differentiation. It omits any description of the return payload shape or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, which is a minor gap but not critical for a deprecated read operation.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters fully. The description restates the asset and status enum values and mentions chain filtering, but adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (cross-chain bridge deposits) for the authenticated account, with ordering and optional filters. It also names the replacement tool and distinguishes itself from `fetch_deposits`, so an agent can identify its exact scope without opening other schemas.

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 marks the tool as deprecated and directs the agent to `fetch_bridge_deposits`, which is a clear when-not-to-use instruction. It also states the authentication requirement and contrasts the tool with `fetch_deposits`, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate versus its siblings.

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