submit_deposit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses API-credential requirements, that the deposit is persisted/recorded, and that it moves REAL collateral on the account. It does not cover reversibility, rate limits, or error behavior, and the 'testnet/synthetic' vs 'REAL collateral' framing is slightly tension-laden, keeping it just below 5.

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?

Front-loads the deprecation notice and the correct alternative before the mechanism detail, so the most actionable information comes first. Slightly dense with parenthetical asides, but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description supplies the safety profile (auth required, real collateral moved, recorded) and routing. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around failure/reversal behavior.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's restatement that `amount` is a positive decimal string and `asset` defaults to USDX adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (submit a deposit via the deposits ledger) and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings: it is deprecated in favor of `create_deposit`, and it differs from `deposit` in that the deposit is recorded and listable via `fetch_deposits`. An agent can route correctly without opening any 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 says the tool is deprecated and names the replacement (`create_deposit`), and clarifies the alternative `deposit` it is not equivalent to. The condition that selects each sibling is stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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