Retrieve the authenticated account's deposit history with optional limit. Deprecated: use fetch_deposits instead.
Deprecated: use fetch_deposits. List the authenticated account's deposit history. Requires API credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of records to return (max 100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add two useful behavioral facts: this is a read of the authenticated account's own history, and it requires API credentials. However it says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or return shape for a list endpoint.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loading the deprecation warning before the purpose and the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 one-parameter, deprecated read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, replacement, and auth. Only pagination/ordering details are absent, which is a minor gap given the tool is being retired.
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% for the single `limit` parameter (including the max-100 bound), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.
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 and resource ('List the authenticated account's deposit history') and immediately flags its lifecycle status as deprecated with the named successor `fetch_deposits`. An agent can distinguish it from the many sibling listing tools (get_withdrawals, fetch_bridge_deposits) without opening a schema.
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 redirects to `fetch_deposits` as the replacement, which is strong routing guidance and effectively constitutes a 'when not to use' instruction. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't say whether this deprecated tool still works, or under what conditions an agent might still legitimately call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.