list_deposits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions authentication requirements, but it omits details such as whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or permissions needed beyond credentials. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 extremely concise with two targeted sentences. Every sentence contributes value: one for purpose and one for a critical 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about returned data structure (e.g., fields, pagination info). The tool is simple, but the description leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect in the response.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'limit' parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 description clearly states 'List the authenticated account's deposit history', which specifies a verb (List), a resource (deposit history), and a user scope (authenticated account). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_deposit_target' or 'submit_deposit'.

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 the tool is for retrieving deposit history, and it adds a prerequisite ('Requires API credentials'), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

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